Holbrook attorney Frank Shoemaker's attempt to place "NE 420" on the license plates of his van, and the Nebraska Department of Motor Vehicle's rejection, has brought on a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union and a slew of comments on our website.

"Sixteen states and the District of Columbia have legalized some form of marijuana use," he said. "This is a conversation happening around the country, so how can Nebraska say it's illegal to even talk about it here?"

The problem is that the number 420 is associated with pot smoking, as a time, date or place to light up -- as well as a list of references ranging from a children's poem "four and twenty blackbirds, baked in a pie," to Hitler's birthday and the Columbine massacre.

That association probably doesn't do Shoemaker and other proponents of legalized marijuana any good; he has submitted a proposed ballot initiative to the Nebraska Secretary of State's office, which will need to collect valid signatures from 10 percent of the state's registered voters, or more than 112,800 before July 7.

No one is saying Shoemaker can't talk about the issue on his van; a photo accompanying the ACLU release shows it's already carrying a number of messages promoting the issue. It's just that the state has a policy against vanity plates that "express, connote or imply objectionable, obscene or offensive words or phrases."

Shoemaker's move has already achieved an important goal, drawing attention to the proposed ballot issue.

Proponents of legalization -- or at least decriminalization -- of marijuana contend that alcohol and tobacco are at least as dangerous as pot, and that the drug isn't worth the amount of taxpayer dollars being invested in law enforcement, prosecution and incarceration. Keeping it illegal only increases profit and power for drug cartels, they say, and deprives governments of millions of dollars of potential tax revenues.

Opponents have no shortage or arguments against marijuana as a health hazard, a gateway to more dangerous drugs, a profit center for criminals and, at a minimum, a drain on ambition.

But it does seem reasonable to at least place the issue before the voters so that the issues can be debated and voters can have a say in setting public policy.

Another promotion that probably won't do much for the pro-marijuana legalization cause is a Thanksgiving coloring contest, sponsored by a group called Moms for Marijuana.

The anti drug- and alcohol-abuse group, PRIDE-Omaha is warning that the Nebraska Moms for Marijuana is promoting the contest on its Facebook page.

While the group claims the contest is open to all ages, PRIDE-Omaha argues that few adults enter coloring contests.

"This contest is an outrageous affront to parents who are trying to keep their children drug free," said Susie Dugan, executive director of PRIDE-Omaha.

The dispute points out the most important issue related to substance use and abuse of any type -- the danger to the next generation.

Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. If you feel that a comment is offensive, please Login or Create an account first, and then you will be able to flag a comment as objectionable. Please also note that those who post comments on mccookgazette.com may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.

It's time to change federal law and STOP wasting taxpayer's money and police resources on marijuana!! Banning adult marijuana sales makes children LESS safe by creating large profits for drug dealers where otherwise there would be NONE.

Just look at how hard it is to buy illegal alcohol and how easy it is to buy illegal marijuana and you see firsthand the effectiveness of alcohol legalization and the ineffectiveness of marijuana prohibition. Marijuana is far LESS harmful than beer and wine which are LEGAL, and is also far LESS harmful than the federal marijuana prohibition which empowers the Mexican drug cartels and draws drug dealers into our communities and around our children. We need to change the federal marijuana laws and keep drug dealers AWAY from our children!

-- Posted by jway on Fri, Nov 18, 2011, at 3:24 PM

Does this mean we can stop teaching our children drug use is harmful to them?

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Sat, Nov 19, 2011, at 8:44 AM

Absolutely grandmajo. If only weed were legalized, Mr. Lewis would not be in trouble. Isn't that the entire point of legalization?

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Sat, Nov 19, 2011, at 10:58 AM

do you teach them that smoking is harmful? what a sutpid question. sounds like in the link you posted he planned on selling it because big money can be made by doing so. Make it legal and the temptation to make big bucks by selling it is not there. Mr. lewis would not be in trouble because he would not have dont what he did.

Again with the argument "legalize everything". every time I read that it never fails to elicit a laugh and for that I thank you.

-- Posted by president obama on Sun, Nov 20, 2011, at 9:17 AM

I suppose this would be a great source of laughter for the uninitiated and the one dimensional thought crowd. If the thought of this makes your day worth living, then I guess I'm reaching the right crowd.

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Sun, Nov 20, 2011, at 7:18 PM

I personally have a hard time finding people to work, throwing yet another easy to get "work deterrent" out there isn't the answer. In fact..... Its stupid. Of course that's my opinion, BUT, I assure you its one that I'll remember tomorrow and not just something I said while my mind was compromised with a mind altering chemical. If it's legal, it will be used. Blah blah blah, reduced interest if its legal.... That's garbage. I suspect that people use marijuana because it effects the way they feel, not because its illegal. With that theory, good people would be out robbing banks and stealing cars. "If its legalized, taxes will be paid for it.". Yeah right, if it turns legal, the costs go up DUE to taxes and those selling the stuff prior to legalization will continue to sell under the table at a more affordable price. Again, blah blah blah. Those wishing to legalize it merely wish to use it without reprisals.

It has little to do with human rights, and if it DOES, there is much better use of legal resources than to argue, what?, "drug use is good?" You have GOT... To be kidding me.

I didn't vote for you Shoemaker.... Pleased to say.... In the state of our nation's fiscal situation, we're worried about this? Ridiculous, that's what it is. Show me someone that supports the bill and I'll show you someone who's got the munchies.

-- Posted by Nick Mercy on Sun, Nov 20, 2011, at 11:10 PM

Nick,

The last sentence of your first paragraph says it all.

-- Posted by bntheredunthat on Mon, Nov 21, 2011, at 11:25 AM

Nick, you are one poorly educated fellow. Have you been in a state/town where it's legal and widely accepted?

You say, costs go up? Seriously dude, do some damn research. Maybe you should get high and look at this differently, maybe put some logic into this and see why indeed prices go down. When you make it legal, taking away the penalty, everyone can grow it. Let's say you've got 10 guys, with the legal statutes in place, that can have 2 oz of smoke ready product, 3 plants in each phase of the growth process, there is 9 plants per person right there. What is 10x9...do you see what I'm getting at here? EXCESSIVE AMOUNTS OF PRODUCT! When over half the cities populous being a legal card caring patient, that's a LOT of herb my friend. Get with the times and open your closed mind!!!!

-- Posted by marlin on Mon, Nov 21, 2011, at 1:15 PM

He also promotes hemp, you don't smoke hemp. If you do, well, I want to watch. Look up the uses of hemp...compared to plastics, which ruin the earth from the production process, to the waste of that product...Also, look into the FDA, USDA, they are lying their asses off to you and feeding you absolute chemical warfare.

-- Posted by marlin on Mon, Nov 21, 2011, at 1:19 PM

REEEFFFEERRRRR MAADDDNESSS!!!!!!!!!

I love reading our small town talk and reefer madness issues. I am not going to say I want to smoke pot, nor do I want my kids to smoke pot.

All I am going to say is that here we have a weak, very weak drug. Some experts and research have stated it's a weaker drug than alcohol, less habit forming , and less harmful. I have talked to law enforcement officers who say the LEAST of their troubles are the pot smokers.

History tells taught us that the reason marijuana was banned is likely due to the fact that alcohol was the drug of the wealthy and pot was not. They tried to ban booze and look what that got them.

Lastly, let's look at our town as a slice of our society....it is perfectly normal for us to socially accept people binge drinking on the weekends. We accept drinking at weddings, parties, races, dances, etc. We even accept that the bars are full of people every night and they are not there to eat buffalo wings and the parking lots are full of cars and yet somehow they all disappear shortly after 1 AM.

I know we don't all appove of all this, I don't but it's socially acceptable and there's nothing wrong with it for the most part as long as it's done responsilbly.

Now I have to wonder...what's with all the reefer madness? Why are all you people assuming that if leagalized everyone is going to run out and get high all the time and not work? Why do you assume people are going to be worthless, sick, dead, or whatever you are dreaming up. Can people not get this way using a worse and legal drung they can but in over a dozen locations throughout McCook right now?

I'd rather have people driving around smoking pot than drinking if I had to make a choice between the two. I'd rather hire a guy that smokes pot on the weekends than one who is drinking all the time.

You people just blow my mind with your ignorance and prejudice. The hypocrisy of people who lambaste the idea of legalizing pot but engauge in drinking or enabling people that do. You know, there are a lot of innocent people who die every year due to drunk drivers and most of time we all look the other way while a buddy or a friend goes to the bar for a few drinks and drives home, yet here you are disparaging people who might want to smoke pot.

I agree, that you all should do some more research before you get caught up in the reefer madness!

-- Posted by Justin76 on Mon, Nov 21, 2011, at 2:02 PM

I just want to thank you Justin for being a logical, rational, thinking adult. I fully agree.

If only people would get as angry about FDA and USDA regulations on what they are eating for survival instead of being worried about whether or not I got high...

-- Posted by marlin on Mon, Nov 21, 2011, at 2:39 PM

marlin..... Did you just call me dude? Seriously, I'm laughing out loud... Way to represent! No, I'll not be getting high in the very near future, but thanks for the suggestion. I don't believe one can think clearly under the influence of either drugs or alcohol and because I have a job that requires a clear mind in order to keep my employees fed, I will abstain.

This is your post... And this is your post on drugs. Later dude.

-- Posted by Nick Mercy on Mon, Nov 21, 2011, at 3:19 PM

Justin76,

Since you would much rather have people smoking weed and driving than drinking and driving, I hope neither you or anyone you care about is ever injured or killed by a high driver, should pot ever become legal in Nebraska.

Marlin,

You should hop in Frank's VW and cruise the state promoting NE 420 with him, Dude. Go back to the 60's.

-- Posted by bntheredunthat on Mon, Nov 21, 2011, at 4:01 PM

his wife knew he was doing it, she is not a victim, accessory perhaps, but not a victim. I have no problem with a coach smoking weed in his garage at night. I dont think smoking weed in your garage at night has anything to do with being a role model.

-- Posted by president obama on Mon, Nov 21, 2011, at 6:23 PM

Now that I have some time to dedicate to responding to your comment marlin, I would have to say that YOU need to educate yourself a bit more.

Small Business 101:

1. In order to sell anything legally, one must acquire a Tax ID number. This will allow the government to audit sales tax receipts of those selling the product.

2. Quarterly, simi-annual and annual tax reports must be turned in, and in a timely manner or the IRS will TELL the supplier/ retailer how much their tax obligation will be.

3. Like cigarette sales, the ATF will require their take on the income and make sure that the products being sold are not dangerous to the consumer. (beyond the obvious)

As a small business owner, I can tell you, it's no SMALL BUSINESS having as small business. The proper documentation to cultivate, harvest and sell this wonder crop will not require a surfer's mentality, it will require a true businessman (person) to stay in the game. That being said, if you think that people will be doing this for less, then my reply is this: "have you purchased a gallon of gas or a gallon of milk lately?"

These suppliers have to deal with the Federal Government regulations on a regular basis and because of such time costly procedures, the consumer's price goes up.

Now, if you you're saying that the ten suppliers that are going to jump right into the Pot Retail business are NOT going to adhere to these regulations, by the way, a registered supplier system is the only way the government will allow this as it will return revenue back to the feds, then I can see that supply and demand will kick in, but I assure you, the penalty for furnishing pot under the radar will be significant since that will be the only way the feds will get any money back into their kitty. Those following the rules will find out quickly that it costs a lot more to supply pot following the mandated regulations than it did when they were hiding it in their basement. Those extra 9 suppliers will go back to their day jobs within 3 months and the remaining retailer will monopolize the market.... supply and demand.... "If you're the only supplier, and the demand is great.... the price goes up."

THAT IS FREE ENTERPRISE. Check your social studies book..... it's all spelled out pretty clearly.

-- Posted by Nick Mercy on Mon, Nov 21, 2011, at 6:58 PM

Other things to consider marlin. The USDA will be brought in with it's regulations. It will be their business to determine is the weed was grown organically or conventional. Another factor will be if the field was treated with a herbicide to control other weeds, or if an insecticide was used to control insects. Fungicides may have to be used if the weed was stored. And let's not forget chemical preservatives. Do we really know if these agents are used now?

The EPA, OSHA and department of labor will be involved. All the thing considered, along with Nick Mercy's tax arguments, will drive up the price, thus eliminating small producers, leaving only large corporate producers. Probably the existing tobacco companies. This will decrease supply, raising prices and thus recreating a black market.

This, along with the negative social effects of weed, will result in a negative effect of legalization.

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Mon, Nov 21, 2011, at 7:38 PM

marlin,

You speak of an open mind with weed. Do you have acquaintances from the Vietnam War who are still smoking weed to "dull the edges" of their memories? When high, they are still their, fighting the same war over and over again. Their minds completely closed to the real world, which has moved on. That very closed mindedness keeps them in their past. No healing what so ever.

Ever spend some time with and of toker from the 70's? What decade are their open minds in? Same for the smoker from the 80's, 90's and 2000's. How do I know, been there done that. Sorry bntheredunthat!

And what about the economic loss due to lower productivity of the user. Ever had to deal with a co-worker, boss, or employee who show up to work hung-over on weed? Their minds dull and slow.

So in reality marlin, I'm glad you chose to live in a legalized state. I'm sure you contribute to your economy in your own way.

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Mon, Nov 21, 2011, at 7:51 PM

I hope that neither me nor my family are ever hurt by a drunk driver, but you and your reefer madness crowd are so hell bent on keeping pot banned you are enabling an alcohol fueled society to go on without notice!

When are you people going to start demanding road checks down the street from the bars every night? Those people seem to get all those cars home somehow after having been at the bars all night.

You're all just a bunch of hypocrites. Alcohol destroys more lives and families Every year than pot could ever touch.

Reefer Madness!!!!!!!!!! Did you guys watch that old movie or something?

-- Posted by Justin76 on Mon, Nov 21, 2011, at 8:48 PM

Justin, perhaps if the topic here was alcohol, you might find more people opposed to that, then you might say..... "Hipocrites! I suppose it's ok to hit a bong and drive!" Who said it was ok to drink and drive? You're sounding a bit paranoid..... another side effect of smoking pot.

-- Posted by Nick Mercy on Mon, Nov 21, 2011, at 9:09 PM

well, I can tell you that so far the war on drugs has been a smashing success. thank the lord we are not wasting billions of dollars for nothing.

People, drugs and alcohol detour productivity. In the financial state that were in right now, do you really think its a good idea to promote yet another item that keeps the American citizen from being productive?

Its simply not smart.... You can argue it anyway you wish, but if it isn't somehow bettering the situation then its not a good thing. Now you might want to defend your position, but after that, sit back and study WHY your defending it. Is there any other reason than simply to help justify another "self satisfaction" issue. Really, this nation needs to QUIT worrying about what's in it for me, and start worrying about what they can do for their Country and save the rights that allow them to have an opinion in the 1st place.

But go ahead and light up, shoot up, throw back and argue all you can about something that is merely a recreational issue. Stay foggy in mind wile others do the work around you to make sure the dollar keeps flowing. And hey, don't sweat the small stuff, or the large stuff, don't sweat at all, heck miss work while your at it because once again..... "Its all about you and what makes YOU feel better." That mantra is what's failing this country.

I can't stand lazy, selfish people.... What a shame.

-- Posted by Nick Mercy on Tue, Nov 22, 2011, at 7:41 AM

Justin76,

You did not answer the question. Again, you bring up the alcohol issue. And I agree that alcohol is a very big problem. But do we really need to add another problem to it? Do you really think legalizing marijuana will reduce alcohol realted accidents and fatalities? Be realistic.

Do you have any statistics on alcohol vs marijuana, as you state that alcohol destroys more families than marijuana? How many problems with either have you personally seen or been involved with? Again, I agree that alcohol use is a HUGE problem. But legalizing another mind altering substance does not take away form the alcohol problem. I guess I am not really sure what you want or don't want or why you are even getting so worked up over this issue. Your problem seems to be with alcohol and it is a valid concern. But that is not the issue here.

You keep bringing up drinking and driving. What about adults providing alcohol for minors? I assume that where marijuana is legal there is an age limit on its purchase. Don't you think that adults purhcasing marijuana for minors would be as much of a problem as them buying alcohol for minors?

As far as check points, they are a good thing and would be great to have more often. Unfortunately, most law enforcement agencies have neither the time nor the resources to do them as often as they would probably like. Bigger cities are even cutting public safety in the midst of our current economy. That is often one of the first areas hit when cutbacks are made.

-- Posted by bntheredunthat on Tue, Nov 22, 2011, at 10:10 AM

I wonder how the smoking crowd would feel about pot being legalized. I mean, I doubt pot will be allowed in public buildings if cigarettes aren't. It just seems odd that people who stand for pot tend to compare it to alcohol- like comparing apples to grape juice- but not to cigarettes. Aren't cigarettes closer to pot?

Justin, I find it kind of odd that you're name calling and criticizing people who don't support pot by decrying alcohol, when last year, for example, you were name calling and criticizing people who were decrying the alcohol being served publicly at the races. I suppose there's some line of consistency between both cases, but it makes me wonder what changed your mind in a year and a half. Then again, maybe you'll take whatever stance you'll need to in order to defend the usage of drugs. I'd like to assume that, but that wouldn't be fair.

I also don't quite understand the arguments that pot is better than alcohol because there are less accidents related to it. Couldn't the reason that there are less pot-related accidents be the fact that it is illegal? One could probably argue that the majority of alcohol-related accidents happen because people drive home from bars and such places while intoxicated. At the very least, the public usage of alcohol contributes to the problems it causes. I imagine, then, that a similar situation would happen if public places were put in to use marijuana, even if the number of users doesn't significantly increase upon its legalization. Of course, if "marijuana bars" or public usage don't come into a widespread existence like liquor bars, then this point is moot.

I would also express concern about "secondhand smoke" from smoking pot, which is likely a big concern from those who oppose its legalization. I must ask how effective such smoke is, though, since I know very little about the process.

-- Posted by bjo on Tue, Nov 22, 2011, at 10:54 AM

THC affects areas of the brain that control the body's movements, balance, coordination, memory, and judgment, as well as sensations. Because these effects are multifaceted, more research is required to understand marijuana's impact on the ability of drivers to react to complex and unpredictable situations. However, we do know that--

A meta-analysis of approximately 60 experimental studies--including laboratory, driving simulator, and on-road experiments--found that behavioral and cognitive skills related to driving performance were impaired in a dose-dependent fashion with increasing THC blood levels.12

Evidence from both real and simulated driving studies indicates that marijuana can negatively affect a driver's attentiveness, perception of time and speed, and ability to draw on information obtained from past experiences.

A study of over 3,000 fatally injured drivers in Australia showed that when marijuana was present in the blood of the driver, he or she was much more likely to be at fault for the accident. Additionally, the higher the THC concentration, the more likely the driver was to be culpable.13

Research shows that impairment increases significantly when marijuana use is combined with alcohol.14 Studies have found that many drivers who test positive for alcohol also test positive for THC, making it clear that drinking and drugged driving are often linked behaviors.

Interesting to note Franks statements...like he's really doing this for the benefit of the people of Nebraska; as opposed to being able to toke up in his living room while watching MTV Cribs in his grundies.

Thanks Nick and to all the other voters who ensured this man never attained public office.

-- Posted by Mickel on Wed, Nov 23, 2011, at 9:34 AM

You're all paranoid, another side affect of marijuana. You didn't do your research, lethargy, another side affect of marijuana.

I'm telling you right now, from experiencing both alcohol and marijuana....I sure as shit thought things through at least 4 to 1 when I was high...Drunk, you bet your ass I didn't even finish the thought fully before acting on impulse upon the first thought. I really don't care whether you're for it or not. Weed is by far less harmful than alcohol, if you think differently it's just due to your lack of experience first hand. Just because some government official or group says something, it does NOT mean it's true. If you'd only learn to do more research for yourself, you'll be surprised how much you've been lied to and believed...blindly. Blind belief is the problem with the world these days...

-- Posted by marlin on Thu, Nov 24, 2011, at 1:56 PM

This reminds me of an add, much like that propaganda that you're referring to I believe.

Scene opens with this high school boy, eyes half mass, a joint burning in his grip. The scene switches to the boy's thoughts which are reciting an articulate report regarding the Civil War. An esteemed report no doubt. Scene fades.

Scene open the next day, the same boy stands before the class to read orally his report which to his surprise is comprised of a single sentence, and I paraphrase. "The Silver Was was cool because there were guns."

I suspect marlin, that this is the 4 to 1 thought process that you've experienced.

I can tell you, I have associated with high individuals and although they get into deep and thoughtful conversations, MY experience has never lead me to believe that any major problems have been solved by such thought processes.

Quote: "What if C A T really spelled dog".

RIGHT, by the way, being totally sober has allowed me to abstain from using foul language in a public forum, a sign of will & self control.

-- Posted by Nick Mercy on Thu, Nov 24, 2011, at 4:37 PM

Marlin,

Just because you are a drug user does not mean it is true either.

-- Posted by bntheredunthat on Thu, Nov 24, 2011, at 6:01 PM

"Weed is by far less harmful than alcohol,".

This is YOUR quote, and here you are, arguing that it should be legalized, you are saying that we should legalize something harmful (albeit less harmful than alcohol, but harmful just the same). Why should we legalize something, going into the voting booth knowing full well that it is harmful?

You can put away your comparison to alcohol argument because I wasn't around when the voting to allow alcohol was up for discussion so the alcohol issue is mute. You are going to have to quit using alcohol as a crutch for your defense here and stand on your own two feet.

What you are doing (with your line of argument) is comparing a hurricane = alcohol, to a tornado = pot. Both are equally destructive, alcohol on a larger scale just like the hurricane but WHY, would you wish either one to shoot into you home? Why would you advocate a tornado to blow your home to bits? Sure, it won't effect as many as the hurricane, but we're not strapped between deciding WHICH one we like to see hit, the hurricane is there, do we want to throw the tornadoes in on top of it or would it be better NOT to see yet another destructive force rolling into town? You admitted it was harmful, just not as bad as alcohol. Other than getting high, what's the benefit to legalizing pot? What reason can you give me to vote for the legalization of pot, a harmful drug, by your own admission? Because it's the lesser of two evils? That's the best you've got? Because it helps you think more clearly? Then in the same comment use foul language in a public forum, not so well thought out. Is THAT the best you've got? To make you feel good.... That's the reason isn't it? This is the reason you want the legalization of pot, so you can sit down and puff in some good feelings as opposed to taking care of business. And unless you are exceptional, which you may be, then that is what happens, you slow down your pace and become less productive. And the end benefit still comes down to that one reason, you like the way it makes you feel. THAT'S your argument. Is that about right? You want to legalize pot, a harmful drug, because it makes you feel good? Well you've just summed up the sentiment of meth, coke nd heroin users accross the board. I see where you are coming from.

-- Posted by Nick Mercy on Fri, Nov 25, 2011, at 8:25 AM

Here is a little refresher course for folks to take a look at in regards to the comparison of Cannabis and Alcohol. It might help clarify some of the talking points being used in these posts.

Can you FIND a more biased site? Besides, if there is data on a drug's addiction/ withdrawl/ tolerance/ reinforcement/ and intoxication.... One certainly should NOT be fighting to get it legalized for recreational use.

Like I said, I'm not advocating the use of other drugs, I'm saying that yet another thrown into the mix isn't going to help.

Another point I'd like to make, repeat actually, is supported by that study of Geezer's.... The reduction of violence caused by the use of marijuana is basically a positive focus on a negative aspect.... A reduction of everything, pardon my redundancy but, smoking pot causes a lack of ambition and general loss of productivity. (Sarcastically) THAT'S precisely what we need in this country these days, a less ambitious work force. Good think'n!

-- Posted by Nick Mercy on Fri, Nov 25, 2011, at 11:09 PM

Nick

You seem to think that everyone that uses Cannabis is lazy and not motivated. Is that from personal experience or something you heard at the coffee shop?

The reason I posted the link for you and others is that many consider Cannabis to be a much safer option than alcohol. This is why nearly 50% of our country is now in favor of legalizing Cannabis and 70% are in favor of legalizing it for medicinal purposes if prescribed through a doctor.

I've seen the ambition of those high on pot and I'm not saying that just because it's legal it would be used by everyone during work hours, but I certainly would expect to see an increase of use during the work day.

Secondly, I really haven't seen any tangible evidence that pot is safer that alcohol, I've seen biased reports put out which show favorable data for pot but they didn't show the unfavorable data such as the ratio of unhealthy eating decisions between the use of pot and alcohol which from what I understand, the munchies has quite an associated effect on the user, (especially if the user enjoys cheese)? I don't know what that means; it's just been said time and again. That information may be telling the truth, just not the entire truth..... like a Chevy vs. Ford report in Popular Mechanics..... that has a Ford advertisement on the opposite page.

Finally, this push to legalize marijuana, as I understand it, is only a push to legalize marijuana, not legalize marijuana and regulate the use of alcohol or using marijuana rather than alcohol all together, so once again, to push for the legalization of a recreational drug that shows evidence by it's own biased reports, to be harmful, doesn't really lend itself to being well poised on the "Think it over" list.

That being said, if the government stands to make a buck from it, and it doesn't require much thought, I'd have to say the Fed's will likely jump all over this opportunity. And furthermore, there will be some high officials of this country thrilled to see half of this nation, according to figures, being druggers as it fits right into their (his) plan to dismantle this great nation from the inside out.

These kinds of decisions will have us serving tea to China in no time. Here as there annex, at their disposal.

More people on unemployment (wishing NOT to work), legalized recreational drugs, overspending which adds to the horrendous deficit..... Yep, I'd say we're well on our way to shake hands with Greece.

Whatever we do, let us not get back on our feet like True Blooded Americans are capable of doing but instead loose our troubles in a head of smoke. It's much better to forget our troubles and face them at a later time that to take them head on..... NO WAIT, that doesn't work.

-- Posted by Nick Mercy on Sat, Nov 26, 2011, at 8:57 AM

Wow Nick - you just blew your whole argument and revealed your real dislike is more founded in your hatred of the Government and those that represent the government.

Is this now a plot by the evil government to indoctrinate our fellow citizens?

-- Posted by Geezer on Sat, Nov 26, 2011, at 10:36 AM

I think the government could care less about the safety of a product providing it could turn a dime. And to be clear, I LOVE my country, I'm just not crazy about how it's being run right now.

What's the saying? "Hate the player not the game?"

But I digress. My point there was this: If the government legalizes it, it doesn't mean it's safe but I suspect that there will be many that never considered using it, that might give it a try JUST because it's legal. Legal NOT because it's safe, but because it may return revenue to the Feds.

-- Posted by Nick Mercy on Sat, Nov 26, 2011, at 11:45 AM

Nick

I understand where you are coming from; there are a lot of people not happy with our Government at this time -- but for different reasons.

Not all advocates of legalization are suggesting that it be marketed or sold to the general public. In my opinion that would fall under the constraints of obtaining cannabis through a dispensary facility under a prescription.

Most people just want the right to grow their own for personal consumption or for medical purposes. They want to make that decision for themselves - based on their own opinions and needs, not someone else's.

Almost everyday somewhere in the world a doctor or researcher is discovering beneficial uses for the active ingredients in Cannabis. It absolutely has medicinal value and will remain in our society until alternative medicine is available to replace it at a realistic price.

I just read an article this week where research has shown that Cannabis may play a role in slowing down the progression of Alzheimer's disease. It is also being used by those with Crohn's disease, MS, Hepatitis C, Diabetes, Fibromyalgia, HIV, Hypertension, Tourette"s Syndrome, all forms of Cancer, and on and on. You may find this odd, but Cannabis is often used in the treatment of alcoholism.

It is actually a herb with broad medicinal values.

-- Posted by Geezer on Sat, Nov 26, 2011, at 1:24 PM

I wonder if it would be so widely sought after if the active chemicals were administered in a pill for each of its intended purposes, should the end result help glaucoma yet NOT make the user high. Like Tylenol does for headaches. I suggest that all the hubbub regarding the ability to get it would drift off and the excuses for using it for medicinal purposes would be null. Don't you think it would be similar to narcotic pain blockers, sure it helps the pain but the primary reason this chronic pain persists is because of the desired side effects of the narcotics.

I'm betting there are a lot of tough people out there being treated for pain that amounts to a mere pulled muscle when a couple of ibuprofen would do the trick.

There are many out there that swear up and down that its all about the medical benefits. Many have poor dental health which can cause severe medical issues and they aren't concerned about that medical issue.

I'd like to see what would happen if the medicinal benefits were prescribed without the "high" that goes along with it. What do you think, a lot less chronic conditions requiring the purchase of "medicine"?

-- Posted by Nick Mercy on Sat, Nov 26, 2011, at 4:24 PM

I believe Nick Mercy has it right. Legalization has less to do with true medicinal qualities and more to do with justifying "getting stoned". As Nick mentioned, if the medicinal ingredients could be extracted, legalization is no longer in the argument. Plus, if legalization came about only as a prescription, the underground market will still flourish.

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Sat, Nov 26, 2011, at 10:18 PM

Chunky and Nick,

You two are way behind on current events and what is actually happening in the Cannabis Industry. Big Pharma is already in the process of taking over the industry.

In other words, if big corporations grow dope with the government and put it in a pill, it's medicine. But if you grow it at home or at a city-permitted pot farm and then put it in a vaporizer, it's a felony.

Then why not just follow the law and get a prescription for a for a formulation to put in your vaporizer.

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Sun, Nov 27, 2011, at 7:38 AM

Chunky

If you are going to make statements like that you should at least spend a minute of your time and research what a vaporizer is and what it does. Otherwise you may run the risk of being uninformed of the subject you are commenting on.

-- Posted by Geezer on Sun, Nov 27, 2011, at 8:03 AM

Geezer,

Having spent several minutes reading your link, I must say I am unswayed. If anything I am now more resolute in my opposition against legalization. The vaporizer in nothing more than an alternative way to get stoned.

What possible stress in in life can be alleviated by being stoned? None.

And who's left to pick up the pieces of a shattered life, and lives, as a result of drugs, and alcohol? Society?

We as a society should demand more personal responsibility from our citizens. Right now every family has been touched by an addiction. We try desperately to help, and some hope to merely solve the addicts problems is to make their drug of choice legal. We all know it's wrong, we all know no one smokes (vaporizes) just a little weed (meth, coke, smack, etc). Nobody tells their children to enjoy weed and other drugs in moderation. We all know moderation cannot happen with weed and other drugs.

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Sun, Nov 27, 2011, at 3:35 PM

Geezer, let us go old school for those of us not up with the times shall we. Would you do me the favor of regaling me as to what the root of your point of view is please?

Is it that the medicinal benefits of cannabis, or that pot makes you high. My point is that if the big pharmaceutical companies are already taking advantage of the drug, then there is no other reason, medically speaking, to legalize it any more than cocaine should be legalized. Cocaine, as you must be well aware of with all your infinite wisdom, is used in medicine not only in part as a prescription pain inhibitor but also as a chemical cauterizer for persistently breached blood vessels.

Now if it is legalized as you mention, so that the average Joe can self medicate then once again.... I submit to you that they self medicate for the majority purpose of getting high. This leads me back to the argument that adding a harmful drug into anyone's hands isn't a good idea and anyway you look at it, its only for the purpose of getting stoned. Otherwise take advantage of the pharmacy to receive those numerous medicinal benefits.

Legalizing 1 drug under the pretense that its for medical purposes, opens the door, based on that precedence, for any other "get high" drug out there including cocaine.

So again Geezer, and all you other cannabis for medicine proclaimers out there, if the medicinal benefits already exist through the pharmaceutical companies, and you truly wish to be able to utilize those benefits, why must pot be legalized?

-- Posted by Nick Mercy on Sun, Nov 27, 2011, at 3:52 PM

I agree with CPB. No problems truly get solved by ignoring it, specifically, via use of the drugs to do so.

-- Posted by Nick Mercy on Sun, Nov 27, 2011, at 5:42 PM

Why must pot be legalized you ask?

Because if it is not then it will end up becoming excessively expensive like other medicines and only available to those individuals that can afford it. Why would you want to pay for medicine that you can grow yourself for next to nothing? If you don't like it don't use it - that is called individual choice.

Cannabis is not the same as Cocaine, Meth, etc. It is not a manufactured substance, it is a natural herb and has existed for thousands and thousands of years.

-- Posted by Geezer on Sun, Nov 27, 2011, at 9:02 PM

I could care less about medical use. I just dont care to have cpb and nick regulating what I choose to do in my garage. Why dont you worry about your own home and less about everyone elses

-- Posted by president obama on Mon, Nov 28, 2011, at 8:37 PM

Because bigdawg, whatever happens in your garage always spills out into the neighborhood. We as parents always talk to our kids about drug use and the permanent damage it does to their lives. Thankfully, we have you to back up our talks as fact. Yes, some children will be enticed into your garage to share with whatever it is you do in your garage, which isn't good for anyone.

So yes, I do take care of my home first. You could make our job, and society's, a lot easier by taking care of yours.

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Mon, Nov 28, 2011, at 10:19 PM

Cannabis, or weed is the same as any illicit drug. It allows the user to temporarily escape reality. But as is the case with all illicit drugs, reality returns. Not a single thing was solved by being stoned. Next time, we just do more, and more and so on.

It may be an individuals choice, but who must always pick up the pieces of a shattered life. Everyone else.

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Mon, Nov 28, 2011, at 10:25 PM

Prison is filled with people who made there own choices. Now I'm no financial genius but those license plates that the inmates press doesn't pay their expenses so all these excellent self choices...... YOU pay for dawg. So hip hip hooray for the freedom of choices made by people which acted or reacted under the influences. Take care of MY home? It would be a lot easier if I wasn't paying for others bad choices.

Geezer, cocaine in its mildest form can be obtained by chewing the leaves of the cocoa leaf which won't result in the high but gives the user a carefree sensation, that sounds A LOT like pot to me.

The evolution of this topic has gone as follows:

1. Pot helps with deeper thoughts.

2. Pot has great medicinal values.

Now....

3. It's a matter freedom of choice.

Keeping harmful products out of the hands of people which are prone to making bad decisions isn't a stripping of freedom, its an obligation. And yes, people can get the product even if its illegal, but there are repercussions for it.

A civilized society is based on rules. Without rules, you can't get anything done. If we just let people choose to do whatever they want, we'd have anarchy. Choosing to do something without rules may lead to the satisfaction of that individual but in life and science, for each action there is an equal and opposite reaction.... Someone else is also effected. would you agree?

-- Posted by Nick Mercy on Tue, Nov 29, 2011, at 1:39 AM

wow cpb, you seem to know me well. Can you name 1 thing that has spilled out of my garage? Did you just say I was enticing children into my garage?

you are really grasping

-- Posted by president obama on Tue, Nov 29, 2011, at 12:58 PM

Sounds more like you're grasping, bigdawg. You formed your post in the first person, and CPB responded appropriately. It's pretty ridiculous to speak figuratively, then act like it's personal when someone else responds in kind. Then again, that's the level of the responses I've seen from you since I've starting coming to this site.

Of course, if you are speaking literally, as in you are smoking marijuana in your garage, then maybe you should improve your online discussion skills in your free time instead. Still, I took it figuratively, and I imagine that CPB did the same.

-- Posted by bjo on Tue, Nov 29, 2011, at 4:01 PM

just want to know whats spilling out of my garage? he said it, not me.

It amuses me that you mock my posts as being beneath you yet you continue to respond to them. If the level of my responces is so low then dont bother with typing anything back. Im not sure what you would call someone who argues with people they consider stupid and incoherent. Guess your not quite as high up on the ladder as you think you are.

Im sure if you look around on the internet you will find a blog for people who like to give english language lessons on small town blogs.

ALERT ALERT ALERT bjo is giving english lessons on a blog.

thats what you can do in your spare time, go from blog to blog and give out english lessons

-- Posted by president obama on Tue, Nov 29, 2011, at 5:53 PM

guess you dont understand the "stay on topic" part. You should use your awsome english language skills and look it up.

-- Posted by president obama on Tue, Nov 29, 2011, at 5:57 PM

Smoking pot in your garage is as legal as counterfeiting money or assault. I can hear now the moral equivocation...but you can't get around that fact.

I suppose the "legalization" advocates turn their backs on other law-breaking that they deem "victimless" or "not that bad". Talk about imposing your morality on others.

-- Posted by Mickel on Tue, Nov 29, 2011, at 8:39 PM

Mickel

Nebraska is one of the 14 states that has decriminalized personal use marijuana possession. First offense possession of up to an ounce of marijuana is a civil infraction punishable under Nebraska law by a $300 fine (and a possible drug education course) instead of jail time, and is a citation as opposed to an arrest.

Counterfeiting and assault are criminal offenses and subject to arrest.

Let's take a look at the other side of the issue and talk about who is growing the marijuana. No matter where you go in Nebraska you will find an abundance of Marijuana growing in Farm Fields, Fence Lines, ditches, gardens, flower beds, etc., etc.

Most counties and cities have ordinances that address these issues yet still it is allowed to mature. Whose responsibility is it to rid their property of this noxious weed? Why aren't these people being held accountable for growing this marijuana? Talk about imposing your morality on others.

The State of Nebraska produces 8,000 pounds of marijuana a year worth $53,000,000 according to the DEA - and this only includes the amount recovered. Do you think any of the youth in our state find access to these fields when the sun goes down? Until this situation gets under control Nebraska will always have marijuana offenders - that is the reality of the situation.

If we aren't going to hold those that grow it responsible, we shouldn't hold those that use it responsible either.

-- Posted by Geezer on Wed, Nov 30, 2011, at 9:29 AM

hahahhahahahah So, again, due to your lack of education you've stricken something down again. THC CAN BE EXTRACTED! (tetrahydracannabinol(THC) - the ingredient which produces said euphoric feeling from smoking, or ingesting it)

As for the 'less harmful' statement, sorry you guys took it so literal. I should have stated, 'smoking marijuana is harmful' Ingesting it however, shows no adverse affects on ones health. So depending upon your form of ingestion, it can be albeit, slightly harmful to your health. Why not just have a keef cola? How about some marijuana pasta? Ganja Gourmet! A rather successful company now.

You Nick and the rest keep living in Nebraska, the state who's taken steps backwards in the last few years from their unbiased stance on marijuana(and many other very important issues in our world). Don't worry, everything takes a step back and stays there in Nebraska.

-- Posted by marlin on Wed, Nov 30, 2011, at 12:33 PM

Nick,

Yes, I enjoy the feeling of peace, the alleviation of my pain, and the restful sleep in which it helps me achieve. I'm sorry I'd rather not depend on a man-made chemical toxin(pharmaceuticals) to cure my ailment. I approach it with nutrition, the true way to correct any problem in the body. You seem to think because of a few cases, drug propaganda ads you've seen that people can only get lazy and slow down whilst high. Again, you being closed minded, set on your views and your view only think that, that is the only thing that happens. Sorry that marijuana affects each and EVERY person differently. Especially the type of marijuana they're ingesting, from indica, to sativa, to blended strains. Yes, some weed will knock you down like a ton of bricks, similar to pain killers prescribed. As well when a Dr. prescribes you a pill that isn't as potent as another pill...again, its' all about dosage and control. Any and everything in excess is/can/will be DETRIMENTAL. That is human nature...A is A and B is B. Man will be man and plant will be plant...I just enjoy getting on here and getting you bible thumpers riled up. Seriously though, do some research on where 'weed' is these day's. It's just a plant that grows wildly....

-- Posted by marlin on Wed, Nov 30, 2011, at 12:41 PM

Geezer - from what I understand, living in Red Willow County...the "weed" growing around here hearkens back to the days when hemp was grown, around WW2 I believe. My understanding also includes that it is not a variety that is desirable to smoke. That may explain the feeble efforts to erradicate it. A weed like that can be spread by birds, animals, wind and other weather...so how exactly does that equate morally???

If smoking in the garage was legal - then why would it be punishable by a fine? Legal actions don't require legal consequences.

-- Posted by Mickel on Wed, Nov 30, 2011, at 1:00 PM

Nick, give this a read, then go ahead and hit with your propaganda spew. Here's just the real world at it again, enjoy.

So if you go ahead and read that, you'll see, that weed, is indeed, less harmful...in many ways.

Your posts Nick, tend to contradict with reality and what you think is right. For example..>

"But I digress. My point there was this: If the government legalizes it, it doesn't mean it's safe but I suspect that there will be many that never considered using it, that might give it a try JUST because it's legal. Legal NOT because it's safe, but because it may return revenue to the Feds."

How many people do you think try alcohol when they turn 21, simply because they can? MANY(same with tobacco). Regardless of what any person, book or law tells us, we will taste the forbidden fruit, more so when it's got a taboo about it. Simple rebellion, everyone goes through that phase in life. If you haven't yet, you will.

My real concern is this Nick, you blasted me with this one: "You can put away your comparison to alcohol argument because I wasn't around when the voting to allow alcohol was up for discussion so the alcohol issue is mute. You are going to have to quit using alcohol as a crutch for your defense here and stand on your own two feet."

So simply because 'you weren't around when the voting to allow alcohol was up for discussion' you are going to stand back, be mute and not fight for the scientific facts that alcohol is extremely toxic to ones entire body, from the functioning of human homeostasis to impairments...but you're going to go on and on about a simple, harmless plant that could actually help our economy? I'm not just talking about medicinal weed, I'm talking hemp. It just scares me to know that you simply are against something due to your own personal, moral beliefs and ignorance to the actuality of the matter. For you I'm sorry, I'm just glad, that despite people like you in this state and country, the rest of us still can vote, and we will beat you with that vote, because we are conscious, self rationalizing beings whom know their own limits. If you choose to over indulge that is your own choice, let science take it's course.

-- Posted by marlin on Wed, Nov 30, 2011, at 3:04 PM

marlin, allow me to quote you and then let us, by your example, discover the meaning of contradiction, shall we?

1. "Your posts Nick, tend to contradict with reality and what you think is right. For example."

1A. "I really don't care whether you're for it or not. Weed is by far less harmful than alcohol,"

1A Contradiction: "but you're going to go on and on about a simple, harmless plant that could actually help our economy?"

Do you see the contradiction there? At first it was "less harmful" but that indicates that its still harmful, just not as much as, your words, then you come back with "harmless plant" which would indicate it created no harm.

2. "How many people do you think try alcohol when they turn 21, simply because they can? MANY(same with tobacco)."

2 Contradiction: which is actually your argument against MY quote to follow. " My point there was this: If the government legalizes it, it doesn't mean it's safe but I suspect that there will be many that never considered using it, that might give it a try JUST because it's legal."

The contradiction in your argument is really not so much a contradiction as it is support for my statement. I said, people would try it because it was legal and you countered with how many people will try alcohol when they turn 21 (or legal), MANY, I paraphrased a bit.

You see, you just proved my point with your statement... Many people do, and actually I disagree with that statement, but those are your words... And I'M the contradictural one. Please show me where I contradicted myself.

The reason I'm not listening to the pot vs alcohol issue is because alcohol isn't the topic. Neither is vehicular homicide, nor aggravated assault. Why would I bring those offenses up? How are they relative to pot? You might ask.... They aren't! Its apples to oranges. Just as the comparison of pot to alcohol. According to you, alcohol is much more harmful, just as vehicular homicide would be, therefore, why would you bring it up?

What you have done is a traditional "New car sales maneuver". You find the strengths of your car that doesn't coincide with the strengths of a competitor's brand and leave out your brand's weaknesses.

You're not fooling anyone, and your arguments, regardless their content, just seem to further support my theory because as a self proclaimed pot user, you can't think straight enough to make a good argument.

I sense that you may have been in your Deep Thinking mode when you went to town on your last post.

Thanks marlin, keep it up, pretty soon I won't even have to argue my side, you'll remove any doubt that pot effects the user in adverse ways!

"This is your comment, and this is your comment on drugs"

-- Posted by Nick Mercy on Wed, Nov 30, 2011, at 5:58 PM

Chunky and Nick,

The following is a partial list of organizations that has endorsed the immediate legalization of Medical Cannabis. I guess they all must be hippy oriented, uneducated, do-nothing stoners.

American Academy of Family Physicians

American Nurses Association

American Preventative Medical Association

American Public Health Association

American Society of Addiction Medicine

Arthritis Research Campaign

Australian Medical Association

The Belgian Ministry of Health

The British Medical Association

The Canadian AIDS Society

The French Ministry of Health

Health Canada

The Lymphoma Foundation of America

Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada

Multiple Sclerosis of the United Kingdom

National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine

National Association for Public Health Policy

National Nurses Society on Addiction

Netherlands Ministry of Health

New England Journal of Medicine

Alaska Nurses Association

California Academy of Family Physicians

California Nurses Association

California Pharmacists Association

Colorado Nurses Association

Connecticut Nurses Association

Florida Medical Association

Hawaii Nurses Association

Illinois Nurses Association

Medical Society of the State of New York

Mississippi Nurses Association

New Jersey State Nurses Association

New Mexico Nurses Association

New Mexico Medical Society

New York State Nurses Association

North Carolina Nurses Association

Rhode Island Medical Society

Rhode Island State Nurses Association

Virginia Nurses Association

Wisconsin Nurses Association

Minnesota Nurses Association

National Women's Health Network

Then we have 500 of the nations top economists that have come out against prohibition of Cannabis -- based on fiscal impacts due to prohibition.

Can you tell driving down the road looking out into a field if one variety or another is potent or not?

That is why so much is grown here in Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, Missouri, Kansas, etc. - the wild variety provides a cover for the more potent strains. Without the cover it would stand out like a sore thumb.

Several years ago I was laying out a wind farm in Illinois on a large parcel of land that had been used primarily as set aside ground. As far as the eye could see were marijuana plants. I asked the developer if he had any problems with people coming onto the land and harvesting the marijuana - he said it was no good for that purpose, just a weed like any other weed to him. I don't know if he was lying or just not knowledgeable but over the next two weeks as we laid out the access roads and power line routes, it became evident someone thought it was worth harvesting. Every day we would encounter areas where the plants had been snipped off at ground level and removed.

One of the contractors I hired to help with the project later told me that these areas are often preferred by those growing the potent strains because they blend in with the rest of the plants. Makes you wonder how many of the land owners let the fields get that way on purpose. Yup, just didn't have the money to spray this year, maybe next.

All varieties produce seeds if pollinated, not just the wild variety and they get dispersed by the same methods.

Last summer they found some pivots of corn in the Treasure Valley of Idaho that was concealing over two thousand fully developed highly potent plants -- millions and millions of dollars worth. The farmers said they don't know how they got in there. Funny they didn't notice them when cultivating.

Unfortunately marijuana has also come under attack by the genetic manipulators as well. There are now strains that have virtually no odor and set their flowers well in advance of the wild variety pollen release - virtually guaranteeing a quality plant can be grown in a field of wild plants. Then there are the miniature varieties, just as potent as the big ones, but only 18" high. Then there are the varieties that don't have the traditional leaf shape or color of normal marijuana. It goes on and on.

The only way to eradicate marijuana is if all varieties are kept at bay, otherwise it is a futile effort. Just one potent plant in a field of wild marijuana can cross pollinate and at least some of the next generation will carry that potency. Of course we haven't even talked about the indoor growers have we?

The point I am making is that Marijuana is here to stay regardless of our efforts to curtail it. We can continue the war on drugs indefinitely or we can embrace it in the same manner as we have done with alcohol, a much more dangerous drug.

The voters will make the final decision.

-- Posted by Geezer on Wed, Nov 30, 2011, at 6:18 PM

"Medicinal" marijuana. That's the key word. But who said anything about medicinal marijuana. Its legalization of marijuana, and for the most part, one might assume it's NOT the medicinal benefits that the advocates are looking for although it does seem to be the leading battle cry for the advocates.

Can the cash crop be eradicated? No, but does that mean it should be legalized? If you say yes then does that go for all things that can't be eradicated? Terrorism for example causes people deep thoughts and consideration. We have yet to eradicate that, make it legal. I apologize for that apple to orange comparison, I was just making a point.

-- Posted by Nick Mercy on Wed, Nov 30, 2011, at 9:33 PM

Nick

I don't believe anybody is advocating unrestricted legalization of Cannabis as you imply. Even if it obtains partial legalization status, it will always be heavily regulated. Let's try to keep the discussion grounded in reality.

The cash crop for Cannabis will probably always be there to some extent, just like the corn liquor industry in the south is for those preferring alcohol. I do believe that it would greatly reduce the cash crop as people realized there were now legal means available to them. Some of those cash crop growers would probably convert to legal growers to supply the Medical Marijuana and the pharmaceutical industry. The old supply and demand theory.

-- Posted by Geezer on Thu, Dec 1, 2011, at 8:34 AM

Geezer. Have you read marlin's comments? He is not mincing words when he says he's in it for the "high". And from what I can ascertain from his comments, he is one of many that adhere to that mind-set.

So far a cash crop growers are concerned, these cash croppers aren't going to continue to do business as usual, they will have to be regulated no differently than those in the pharmaceutical industry, overseen by the FDA. Then let us not forget the insurance aspect and random selection testing to assure quality and the Big Brother paperwork. One of the arguments above was that the price of Pot would then be reduced. Between, quality control, insurance, taxes, product liability, OSHA regulations, controlled shipping and distribution. Sorry marlin, there will be no price drops.

Now that being said, if there are medicinal values to cannabis, and it gets routed through the highly regulated pharmaceutical companies and prescribed by physicians then there really is no issue, but I submit to you that a mass majority of the population is thinking that legalization of pot means that they can toke up in their front yard as opposed to hiding in the basement with a can of air freshener. That, Geezer, is the reality I assure you. If glaucoma is the highly rising health issue that is pushing this "medical" miracle drug, then according to marlin.... glaucoma is out of control as his number of people needing it implies. Your nursing association stats would also lean that direction.

Keep it grounded in reality? People want to get high, that's the reality.

-- Posted by Nick Mercy on Thu, Dec 1, 2011, at 9:52 AM

Nick

Most people want the right to grow small amounts for their own personal use, whatever the reason. For those that choose to grow their own there is no FDA, Insurance, etc., etc. For those that purchase it through a dispensary there may be some requirements, I don't know about that. For those that purchase pharmaceutical medication that is a derivative of Cannabis there probably will eventually be regulations as it will be sold as a manufactured drug to the general public and obtained at Pharmacies. And yes, it should be a lot cheaper than many of the medicines currently on the market -- it is a natural plant that can be grown to suit the demand.

It seems your whole argument boils down to you don't want people to enjoy any of the pleasurable attributes of Cannabis. Yet that alone is what many consider to be the true value of the plant. I am 100% sure that some of the future medication derived from cannabis will be used to replace Prozac and other medications used to suppress depression, bulimia, panic disorders, anxiety, etc. What do you think people are doing when they get high or get drunk Nick?

-- Posted by Geezer on Thu, Dec 1, 2011, at 11:50 AM

Geezer,

Isn't much more productive to deal with mental disorders at it's source rather than merely suppressing the disorders? Or are is the psychological community looking for a easy way out?

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Thu, Dec 1, 2011, at 4:26 PM

Chunky

You gotta be kidding.

-- Posted by Geezer on Thu, Dec 1, 2011, at 8:31 PM

Oh, I think they are running from their problems by chasing the dragon. The problem there is that when its all said and done, their problem persists, a and has been joined by others.... Perhaps lack of employment if they swing the direction of allowing it to effect them during work hours, perhaps health issues, loss of money due to the expenditures of the drug itself, and even prosecution if there use involves breaking the law such as driving while under the influence.

The worst thing may be the loss of family and so I ask you Geezer, is this acceptable to you?

I have spoken to two wives of men who used pot. They weren't addicted, they couldn't have been because as marlin indicated, it isn't nearly as addictive alcohol, they just used it daily and spent money that they didn't have. In any case, one wife currently quarrels with her husband constantly, and the other took her children and moved on. And this harmless miracle drug, cash crop, problem solving, deep thought promoting, cheaply produced product is victimless. Sure there are children without both parents out there but hey, life isn't fair. They should learn that early on, let's see, one is 3 and the other is 7. If it causes issues later in their lives it isn't like they don't know what to do..... They can follow the suit of their father and just forget it all by light'n the weed.... Because hey, it worked alright for their father right?

You know what, after I wrote that out and was able to read it, it doesn't sound as bad as I had it worked up in my head.

My apologies to you Geezer as well as marlin. I guess I just needed to clear that in my mind. I'm sure all will be fine.

-- Posted by Nick Mercy on Thu, Dec 1, 2011, at 10:02 PM

Nick

I truly feel sorry for any family that is broken up, for whatever the reason.

I also feel sorry for all the children that suffer from Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, the children that have to watch a parent die of liver disease brought on by alcohol use or the loss of a loved one in an alcohol related car crash.

I can't even fly on an airplane, take a train ride, or attend a county fair without having to put up with people using alcohol. We're even using tax dollars to fund construction of micro breweries now.

That Dragon has been around for a long time and it is literally killing us. Proponents of legalization of marijuana want people to have a choice other than alcohol -- it is that simple Nick.

-- Posted by Geezer on Fri, Dec 2, 2011, at 8:29 AM

We agree on that Geezer, and my point this entire time has been that as over exposed as we are to the use of other feel good and harmful products.... Is it truly wise to add yet another?

Will the same number of alcohol users be less annoying if there are some additional pot smokers adding to the setting? Having pot legalized won't change the consumption of alcohol drinkers on planes or trains. Bars won't be having pot on tap, even cigar bars are struggling with the no public smoking bill.

And again, alcohol was brought into this topic via the cannabis advocates, like I said, alcohol is a crutch used to promote the legalization of pot because apparently the use of pot can't stand on its own.

-- Posted by Nick Mercy on Fri, Dec 2, 2011, at 12:59 PM

Nick

That's hogwash and you know it.

You would be hard pressed to find anyone in this country that hasn't known someone that was killed or injured in an alcohol related accident.

It is alcohol that cannot stand up to srutiny Nick, even a person with limited knowledge can figure that out.

-- Posted by Geezer on Fri, Dec 2, 2011, at 1:51 PM

I'm sorry but where did I say... In any of my postings, that I advocated alcohol use? The hogwash that you're referring to is what? Do you deny the fact that beyond the comparison of the effects that the two have on the user, there is no relation. Alcohol is man made, and as you said before, we can't compare marijuana to cocaine and meth because it's (pot) is a natural substance. How can you compare it to alcohol then? Also, what you are doing is simply minimizing the dangers of pot in comparison to alcohol to support your cause. There is no apples to apples here.... Alcohol has absolutely nothing to do with pot, nothing. It is only because it's legal to use that it is compared, to show everyone that if alcohol can be legal, why can't pot? Again, you call it hogwash and I'm saying that it could just as easily be compared to cigarettes or if you want to go apples to apples, it could be compared to oxicotin which by your word is a drug used for medicinal purposes, the driving force behind the legalization of marijuana.

Hogwash? Really, give us reasons, other than to produce your own product to get high on, why pot should be legalized.

If for medicinal purposes, then have it go through the proper channels, doctors, prescriptions, and quality control.

If it's for the high, then say its for the high, but don't dance around it.

Keep in mind though, if you can furnish your own high, there isn't even a price tag to prohibit one from over using. If you don't have to sustain from getting high, why not over indulge on a regular basis? Even alcoholics have to slow down when they run out of money, if the two MUST coincide.

-- Posted by Nick Mercy on Fri, Dec 2, 2011, at 2:45 PM

Nick

It all boils down to what the individual and the country feels are in their best interest.

At this time it appears that there is overwhelming support for medical marijuana and just a slight majority for legalization. The tide has changed and more people are demanding a legal alternative to alcohol.

Alcohol remains the most commonly used chemical in crimes of sexual assault, but there are also substances being used by perpetrators including: Rohypnol, GHB, GBL, etc. Marijuana is so insignificant that it is not even listed.

Finally, a comparison of overdose fatalities does not take into account cognitive impairments and risky or aggressive behaviors that sometimes follow drug use. And as most people are well aware, a substantial proportion of violent confrontations, rapes, suicides, automobile accidents and AIDS-related illnesses are linked to alcohol intoxication.

Among college students ages 18-24, alcohol-related unintentional injury deaths increased 3% per 100,000 from 1,440 in 1998 to 1,825 in 2005. From 1999 to 2005, the proportions of college students ages 18-24 who reported consuming five or more drinks on at least one occasion in the past month increased from 41.7% to 44.7%, and the proportions who drove under the influence of alcohol in the past year increased from 26.5% to 28.9%-7% and 9% proportional increases, respectively. The increases occurred among college students ages 21-24, not 18-20. In 2001, 599,000 (10.5%) full-time 4-year college students were injured because of drinking, 696,000 (12%) were hit or assaulted by another drinking college student, and 97,000 (2%) were victims of alcohol-related sexual assault or date rape.

How many of us have someone close who has destroyed their lives, their families, and even their children's lives with drugs. Usually, if not always beginning with marijuana. By the way, I'm a former alcoholic and drug user, so I oppose even the use of alcohol.

I personally don't know anyone who's life was destroyed by marijuana and I lived in Alaska during the time when it was legal.

On the other hand I have seen more than most when it comes to alcohol abuse. Two cousins and an uncle killed in an autombile crash due to a drunk driver, a young lady I worked with who choked to death on her own vomit after passing out, a close life long friend who finally died from complications of a liver transplant and a daughter who got the shit beat out of her by her drunk husband.

When I lived in Anchorage, Ak. I often assissted the Search and Rescue during the winter months when people came up missing - the company I worked for trained all of it's employees in Cold Weather Survival Skills. After chopping and prying loose a body frozen to the ground you gain a whole new perspective on the dangers of alcohol.

I admire that you have overcome your drug and alcohol use Chunky - atta boy, but I don't buy into the gateway drug theory.

My whole argument with drugs and alcohol is based on an individuals right to choose what they consider to be a less dangerous option for themselves.

-- Posted by Geezer on Sat, Dec 3, 2011, at 7:28 AM

I think I understand now Nick. Whenever something bad happens in life, blame it on pot. Getting a divorce, blame pot. Spent money you didnt have, blame it on pot. Fighting with your husband or wife, blame it on pot. Loose your job, blame pot. etc....

-- Posted by president obama on Sat, Dec 3, 2011, at 7:28 AM

A central Nebraska man accused in a deadly accident near Kearney has been charged with vehicular homicide. Twenty-three-year-old Casey Drew, of Riverdale, was originally charged with driving under the influence of alcohol causing serious bodily injury in the Nov. 26 wreck that injured 65-year-old Samuel Sullivan, of Rockville. Sullivan died Tuesday at a Kearney hospital.

The charge was amended on Thursday to motor vehicle homicide-DUI. A telephone call from The Associated Press to Drew's attorney, David Jorgensen, was not returned Friday. A court hearing is set for Jan. 11in Buffalo County Court. The accident happened on state Highway 10 north of Kearney. According to court documents, Drew's blood-alcohol content was nearly four times Nebraska's legal limit of .08 percent.

(Sigh). I really don't have time to research something that has no relevance to the topic just to be sarcastic but back to my point of my last several posts. The topic is marijuana not alcohol. I'm not saying alcohol use is wonderful, I'm not saying alcohol is harmless, in fact I'm not saying anything about alcohol at all. Allow me to be perfectly clear.....

THIS TOPIC IS NOT ABOUT ALCOHOL. That being said, the health risks of living in a nuclear fallout are is horrible, commercial ocean fishing is one of the top most dangerous jobs out there, eating a high saturated fat diet can cause serious heart conditions and none of that has anything to do with pot either.

dawg, so far as your comment goes.... No I think stupid causes peril in people's lives. I think laziness adds to plight, and it think comments like "Whenever something bad happens in life, blame it on pot. Getting a divorce, blame pot. Spent money you didnt have, blame it on pot. Fighting with your husband or wife, blame it on pot. Loose your job, blame pot. etc...." Show just how much intellect I'm dealing with regarding YOU. If you arnt contrubuting, you're simply wasting space. I don't normally get personal on this site but really, you have nothing to base that comment on, I don't blame guns for killing people and cars are not responsible for vehicular manslaughter. So until the time comes that you might contribute something other than meaningless jabs without a real point to back it up, you'll have to pardon me for not responding to your comments. At least marlin is commenting on WHY he believe what he does, and so far Geezer has been the most productive poster in support for the legalization of marijuana, you dawg, find a cause that you can actually support.

-- Posted by Nick Mercy on Sat, Dec 3, 2011, at 2:17 PM

Nick

Actually this topic is about an individuals choice Nick. I am not saying alcohol should not be legal because I don't want to make that decision for another. What I am saying, and a good portion of our citizens are saying is that we also want to make our own decision when it comes to the use of Marijuana or Alcohol.

To each his own.

-- Posted by Geezer on Sat, Dec 3, 2011, at 2:36 PM

"From 1982 to 2009 there was a total of 7,499 traffic fatalities. Of that number 3,070 or 41% were alcohol related."

I officially do not care whether they legalize it or not, but out of curiosity what are the other 59%?

Were any of the 41% also influenced by marijuana?

Also, do you think the statistics are skewed since the only information about marijuana are in a controlled study? Do you also think these numbers would change if legalization ocurred?

My bet would be yes, but that's just my opinion. It would seem to me that drugs, alcohol, marijuana, or otherwise could be just as potentially bad as the other. Obviously there are those that have more serious effects, but I think you get the point.

Interested to hear your thoughts.

-- Posted by bberry on Sat, Dec 3, 2011, at 3:29 PM

you placed the blame on the break up on pot smoking. Perhaps smoking pot prolonged the marriage. Perhaps they would have split anyhow.

sorry you dont like my posts but its not my fault, its the pot.

-- Posted by president obama on Sat, Dec 3, 2011, at 4:54 PM

(I can't believe I'm doing this) dawg, if I placed the blame on the break up, not the pot, then why did you say you understood and I blamed everything on pot?

It was a typo, I got it. I spoke to the woman and SHE told me that his affinity to pot was causing familial problems, thus the break up.

Let me review. Because of his use of pot, she felt the need to sever the marital relationship. I assume nothing from this, I simply pass it on.

I do have to thank you for your comment in regard to the "pot being at fault", I find it both ironic and predictable. Your sarcasm ultimately proved my point. Your typo, albeit, a mistake, only reinforces my view that pot causes issues, mentally. The typo could have been almost anywhere else in your statement and yet it was the EXACT placement to disprove your point.

Come on......... NOW THATS FUNNY!

-- Posted by Nick Mercy on Sat, Dec 3, 2011, at 6:16 PM

Whoops, I wish I would have reworded that, "you placed the blame on the break up on pot smoking" so the blame was BOTH on the break up as well as the pot smoking. Still funny though.

Being petty.... my apologies.

-- Posted by Nick Mercy on Sat, Dec 3, 2011, at 6:20 PM

Geezer, on the topic of alcohol... would you say that sometimes it's in the best interest of others to NOT allow them to choose? All of the info that you have given regarding the ill repercussions from alcohol may lend itself toward the fact that people don't know when to say when. Giving an alcoholic the opportunity to destroy his life and the life of his family and possibly the lives of others seems, in retrospect, archaic, wouldn't you say.

Careful on your response there Geezer, you have been quite liberal on your references to how destructive alcohol can be. To change that tune now may result in a less than powerful presentation to your prior facts. To me it would seem that those that use a chemical for the purpose of being on some form of high, be it drunk or stoned, can adversely effect others. I obtained this through those sites you posted earlier.

-- Posted by Nick Mercy on Sat, Dec 3, 2011, at 6:33 PM

Nick

Actually I have been quite conservative in my posts, aren't conservatives supposed to base their position on facts? If you have different facts then post them for all of us to see Nick.

-- Posted by Geezer on Sat, Dec 3, 2011, at 7:22 PM

HOLY COW! DO YOU SPEAK ENGLISH?

Geezer, did you or did you not post this up:

"From 1982 to 2009 there was a total of 7,499 traffic fatalities. Of that number 3,070 or 41% were alcohol related."

The charge was amended on Thursday to motor vehicle homicide-DUI. A telephone call from The Associated Press to Drew's attorney, David Jorgensen, was not returned Friday. A court hearing is set for Jan. 11in Buffalo County Court. The accident happened on state Highway 10 north of Kearney. According to court documents, Drew's blood-alcohol content was nearly four times Nebraska's legal limit of .08 percent.

Among college students ages 18-24, alcohol-related unintentional injury deaths increased 3% per 100,000 from 1,440 in 1998 to 1,825 in 2005. From 1999 to 2005, the proportions of college students ages 18-24 who reported consuming five or more drinks on at least one occasion in the past month increased from 41.7% to 44.7%, and the proportions who drove under the influence of alcohol in the past year increased from 26.5% to 28.9%-7% and 9% proportional increases, respectively. The increases occurred among college students ages 21-24, not 18-20. In 2001, 599,000 (10.5%) full-time 4-year college students were injured because of drinking, 696,000 (12%) were hit or assaulted by another drinking college student, and 97,000 (2%) were victims of alcohol-related sexual assault or date rape.

Slow enough? Explicit enough? do I need to give you more of your own quotes? What can I do to make you understand that what I am saying is, if alcohol is so dangerous and according to you, pot is comparable.... (You keep bringing it up so it's apparent that you make the comparison.) Then why would we want to add another mental altering chemical to the available list? I'm sure the answer to that will have something to do with the Texas State University study showing the link between alcohol and human rights or something but your reply's to my questions are not answers, they are replies. You have not effectively answered my question... but whatever. I'm so far off of topic now that I am about to flag my own comments.

If you can answer the question great, if you can't, believe me, I understand. In any case, will you please just be productive. I'm sure that there are terabytes of data out there regarding alcohol..... I DONT CARE. If your point was the right to choose, why the alcohol reference? Do you see what I mean? You know what I stand for.... I would like to know what it is that YOU are attempting to achieve.

-- Posted by Nick Mercy on Sat, Dec 3, 2011, at 8:38 PM

bberry

Here is link to the Nebraska Department of Roads Highway Safety Division which keeps all the accident records.

Now if you look at any of the counties section 12 data, it gives the condition of the driver, including illegal drugs.

I did not go through all the counties but I looked at quite a few and didn't find any illegal drugs being checked off. Take a look and see what you think.

I think there is all kinds of data available. There are already states that have active medical marijuana programs. I do think the statistics would change, for the better. I believe that a good percentage of the young adults that drink do so because of the risk of using an illegal substance. I don't ever forsee driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol being acceptable, and it shouldn't be.

Beginning Jan. 1, 2012 it will be legal in Switzerland for each person to grow four plants each for personal consumption. I guess we will all get to see the results of a country wide legalization.

-- Posted by Geezer on Sat, Dec 3, 2011, at 9:27 PM

Nick

You Caps lock key got stuck.

-- Posted by Geezer on Sat, Dec 3, 2011, at 9:32 PM

Interesting links, out of the 7 years I did not find a single report that gave illegal drugs or medication as a reason an indicating reason. This would lead me to believe they do not actively test either of these things.

But you make an interesting point about legalization and statistics change. I do recall reading where a country had legalized marijuana and the crime rate did drop.

But I think in most cases that marijuana, much like alcohol, is as dangerous as the person using it.

That's why it should be a state's rights issue. If an over whelming majority wants to legalize weed, let them vote on it. If your state senator candidate supports legalization, please vote for them. If the majority of state senators elected support weed legalization, there you have it, you've won. I will respectfully keep my mouth shut or move.

If on the other hand, my side wins, will you, weed legalization supporters, do the same?

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Sun, Dec 4, 2011, at 11:51 AM

CPB, I agree with this.

If other states legalized it, those in the non-legal states could move also. Seems win-win.

-- Posted by bberry on Sun, Dec 4, 2011, at 11:59 AM

bberry

In terms of the danger when comparing the two, I don't see them as equals. In the case of alcohol, exceeding the effective amount to achieve the desired effect by only 10 times can lead to alcohol poisoning and death. That is what makes binge drinking so dangerous; you can put more alcohol into your system that it can process.

From all the literature that I have come across regarding marijuana there has never been one recorded case of death resulting from marijuana overdose. I did find one chart that showed the amount of doses to reach lethal levels for most popular drugs and simply stated greater than 1000 for marijuana.

As far as no drug listings in the accident reports the only reference I could come up with is the following:

"Nebraska has no DUID or driving under the influence of Marijuana laws, however, if a driver is found under the influence of marijuana behind the wheel, state driving under the influence charges will prove applicable."

Apparently it is up to the law enforcement officials investigating the accidents to determine if the driver exhibits behavior associated with the influence of drugs.

-- Posted by Geezer on Sun, Dec 4, 2011, at 12:01 PM

Geezer, isn't the effective ammount for the desired effect pretty subjective to those drinking? Same would hold true for marijuana in my opinion. I would imagine both would build up a tolerance with chronic use.

As far as overdose, it would again be based on the individual consumption. I suppose you could argue addictiveness of either, but not all consumers are addicts.

Going back to traffic related accidents, I would also think large quantities of either substance would relate to an accident and/or fatality.

DUID would also apply to whether they were tested for the particular drugs. I am unsure what conditions would constitute them to give a blood test for it though.

If the driver is under the influence of both, but shows only the effects of alcohol, do they bother testing for drugs? I was also wondered if fatalities from accidents resulted in a blood screen of either. I could not find this information.

I do appreciate you providing the other links for me though.

-- Posted by bberry on Sun, Dec 4, 2011, at 12:40 PM

bberry

Here is a recent study (Nov. 2011) that may answer some of the questions you have. It is titled Medical Marijuana Laws, Traffic Fatalities, and Alcohol Consumption.

Thanks Geezer, from what I have read so far it confirms a lot of what I had already suspected but also leaves me with more questions. I will have to continue on the draw a further conclusion. Thanks again, for the link.

-- Posted by bberry on Mon, Dec 5, 2011, at 8:53 AM

Nick, Here is the answer to the question you asked.

Why do I bring up the legality issues of marijuana and alcohol? I guess, my real concern is why does my government tell me what I can, or cannot ingest or enjoy? Government is NOT MEANT FOR TELLING ME HOW TO LIVE OR LEAD MY LIFE(sorry didn't add dashes for a more dramatic effect). It is merely that plain and simple. They should advise, not control. As well as the scientific facts that alcohol, tobacco and majority of pharmaceuticals are seriously toxic to your body, yet are readily available and heavily promoted. There is no logic and no common sense to this and that's why I stand to see it changed, regardless of your inexperience with it. You can state whatever you want, but the reality is, the world's seeing it a different way...some people actually question things and do the research to learn, not just take whatever is put in front of them.

-- Posted by marlin on Mon, Dec 5, 2011, at 8:13 PM

F-A-I-R ...... E-N-O-U-G-H!

-- Posted by Nick Mercy on Mon, Dec 5, 2011, at 9:33 PM

Actually I've come to my senses. I've been looking at this wrong the entire time.

There I was worrying about the condition of this country and what it was turning into when it dawned on me.

A very wise man once told me that with adversity comes opportunity. The way I see it, if everyone has the opportunity to get drunk, stoned and otherwise mentally incapacitated, a clear head will rise to the top, the ambitious will triumph, and the wise will take command.

You see, if more people tune down their ambitions and become overweight due to excessive snacking, then even if I DON'T get smarter, or work harder or even work out, I'm still going to appear all the better in comparison. It's quite simple, it's all about relativity. An elephant may appear quite large to a person..... until a mammoth is sidled up to it. A thief may seem quite the evil until a mass murderer walks into the room, and a pot smoker, alcoholic, meth addict may seem like quite an employee......... until someone that wishes to do what it takes to get the job done, is put on the payroll.

It's not that you look like less of a good catch when THE WORLD is choosing to get high, it's just that I will look like a better option when it comes time for promotions because I don't use words like "Dude" and instead of spending my time in "Deep Thoughts" I use my time in productive activities. I'm sure that you are quite productive while smoking pot, ALL the guys I know are.... when they aren't sitting around a bong cracking inside jokes or in a bar at 4:30 in the afternoon.

In short..... I thank you, for doing your part to separate the mediocre from the diligent.

By the way, just because I've never smoked pot doesn't mean I don't have friends that do. And by extension, I have seen firsthand the inside jokes, and eagerness to hit the weed at the cost of not finishing the task at hand. You may say that pot smokers aren't less ambitious than non pot smokers and I say to you that a skunk doesn't realize that it smells. It's difficult to discern truth in habit.

-- Posted by Nick Mercy on Mon, Dec 5, 2011, at 10:03 PM

I think there are many over exaggerations there Nick. While I've never touched the stuff, I have seen what it does both recreationally and medically. I would say medical marijuana is something to consider, while recreationally it has not really convinced me of any benefits to support legalizing it.

It appears the best argument for it is "why not? Alcohol is legal and it's much worse!" There is a lot of evidence that would support it in comparison to alcohol, but I am not convinced there is enough information to justify all their claims.

In California, medical marijuana was legalized in 1996. The study provided by Geezer supports that marijuana decreases by traffic accident fatalities by 9% yet in the last 10 years, it was only up until 2007 that these began to drop due to stricter traffic laws. In fact, while they dropped briefly in the late 90s, the accident fatality rate actually increased. How is this possible if marijuana decreases accidents, especially if in relation to medical marijuana, when the amount of users has increased?

The study also uses states that recently adopted medical marijuana laws and yet these states have the fewest amount of registered medical marijuana users where as California has 1.25 million and Vermont being as little as 350. So it seems to me more reasonable to believe statistics from California due to longevity and sample size.

I guess in conclusion while people make marijuana seem more dangerous than it probably it is, it is also not as beneficial in comparison to alcohol as supporters claim.

I apologize for the length.

-- Posted by bberry on Tue, Dec 6, 2011, at 8:12 AM

I was exaggerating bb, no doubt. Sometimes I use embellishment to drive home a point that although it may not happen to the extent that I portray, it is possible to some degree.

I'm with you on the recreational use side of the coin, and I maintain that if the medicinal value of marijuana is valid, it should be channeled properly so that over use doesn't become a problem, much like Vicodin for example.

-- Posted by Nick Mercy on Tue, Dec 6, 2011, at 12:20 PM

bberry

I have to disagree with the your conclusion.

We can argue all day about whether marijuana leads to a reduction in traffic deaths, but the sheer volume of deaths related to alcohol outside of traffic accidents speak for themselves. It is more than well documented.

-- Posted by Geezer on Tue, Dec 6, 2011, at 12:28 PM

Geezer,

I do not disagree that alcohol is related to many deaths, but my decision was partly based on inconclusiveness of the comparison between the two. Marijuana isn't as well documented as alcohol, otherwise studies as the one you provided prior would have more evidence than traffic related accidents fatalities or any relation to alcohol.

It would reasonable to me that if there was, that marijuana would be able support its legality argument based on it's effects alone. But this isn't the case, so they make the comparison to alcohol.

From this inconclusiveness, I was unable to establish any benefits recreationally.

There are many other arguments you could make I'd imagine but as far as its comparison of alcohol, there seems to be no rational reason to allow its legality.

I can elaborate more but for now, I must step out for a few.

Have a good one.

-- Posted by bberry on Tue, Dec 6, 2011, at 1:13 PM

Nick, again, it's you stereotyping that one, two, three, maybe four people act that way. Just like the government when it comes to regulating thins they should have ZERO say in...You're forgetting about the business owners, the politicians, doctors, journalists, war hero's, police officers, etc, the list goes on an on. Of those who enjoy smoking, drinking, alone or socially. Trust me, the ones who you think do nothing illegal or bad. Usually have the most demons in the closet in hiding, and they tend to be MUCH uglier.

I find it comical that you bring up relativity...while relativity is a great view point, I think you should try approaching the world and human kind, with a sense of rational, logic based opinions, and scientific facts. I believe in Self Rational Independence. Will continue to do so as well. I know I am a man, capable of leading my life in the direction in which I choose. Enjoying what I choose. Half the people already above you, that stand out among you, are probably getting bliss in the form of a 'fix'. Whether a plant, a drink, or a pharmaceutical, they are indeed fixing themselves up. Keep denying the reality of the world and of man kind...Everybody has an addiction, those who say that they don't, souls will later on say to them later that's not true, everyone will have an opinion, but you know what to do with them...

-- Posted by marlin on Wed, Dec 7, 2011, at 2:30 PM

So going by what you are saying Marlin, they should legalize cocaine because people should be able to make their own decisions without government involvement?

Also using your rationality includes that since realism indicates that they are already using to get their fix, it should also be legal.

If everyone were capable of governing themselves, there would be no need for government. Sadly, this isn't the case.

-- Posted by bberry on Wed, Dec 7, 2011, at 4:48 PM

That's been a point I've been attempting to demonstrate also bb. It would be great to say and better to believe that people can make good decisions without the help of others, but the 71,000 alcoholic binge drinking deaths per year in America would indicate that there are those that certainly DON'T know when to say when. That marlin is the reality.

-- Posted by Nick Mercy on Wed, Dec 7, 2011, at 8:34 PM

Nick

So glad you brought that data to light. Can you also give us the same data for binge marijuana use and how many deaths are associated with that behaviour?

-- Posted by Geezer on Thu, Dec 8, 2011, at 6:29 AM

Geezer,

Acetaminophen is said to have caused more deaths from taking it than marijuana.

However, I do not think it is reasonable to imply marijuana is not associated with death. It may not be from overdose but other related accidents stemming from its use.

Several days ago Nick was all over my case for using alcohol statistics in comparing the dangers of alcohol and marijuana. Now he uses them to support his position - what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

How many people do you know that have died as a result of marjuana use? I personally can not think of one individual.

-- Posted by Geezer on Thu, Dec 8, 2011, at 7:41 AM

Geezer,

I personally would not know because I do not use it nor am I in the position to be around those that do. But if you believe the other links provided then probably quite a few.

-- Posted by bberry on Thu, Dec 8, 2011, at 9:49 AM

bberry

From your first link:

Guohua Li, MD, DrPh, professor of Epidemiology at Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health, and senior author points out that although this analysis provides compelling evidence for an association between marijuana use and crash risk, one should be cautious in inferring causality from these epidemiologic data alone.

Your second link doesn't work.

From your third link:

Here is a link to the actual study as published in the British Medical Journal.

The article by Laumon et al. (2005) supports the assumption of a low risk of cannabis use to cause accidents and a dose-effect relationship observed in previous studies (Drummer et al. 2004, Longo et al. 2001). The results have been cited in the popular media stating that cannabis users face a three times greater risk of being responsible for a fatal road crash. But the results do not support this conclusion. The presentation of the results in the abstract is somewhat misleading, which may have caused this misinterpretation. The figures for the unadjusted odds ratios suggest a more than threefold risk increase for all THC positive drivers and a more than twofold increase even for drivers with a THC blood concentration of less than 1 ng/ml. However, closer review of the results shows that two other factors contributed to the higher accident risk, i.e., alcohol consumption and the younger age of the THC positive drivers, compared to the whole cohort.

About 42% (285/681) of THC positive drivers also tested positive for alcohol, with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.05%, which was associated with an increased risk of 8.5. Even a BAC below 0.05% was reported to be associated with an odds ratio of 2.7 in the study.

But no data were given on the percentage of THC positive drivers with an additional BAC greater than 0.05%. Thus, no information is available on drivers who had only THC in their blood and on their risk of causing an accident.

-- Posted by Geezer on Thu, Dec 8, 2011, at 12:47 PM

Geezer,

I admit to not checking their sources, I was just relating marijuana to the accidents. The article did draw this conclusion:

Conclusions Driving under the influence of cannabis increases the risk of involvement in a crash. However, in France its share in fatal crashes is significantly lower than that associated with positive blood alcohol concentration.

-- Posted by bberry on Thu, Dec 8, 2011, at 3:20 PM

Geezer, once again you attempt to tie alcohol to pot. Never once have I said that alcohol was a safe controlled substance. That data proves it, just like you said.... What that has to do with pot I have no idea. My point is that people often times people can't control themselves. Maybe for the 1000 lb woman that recently passed away, (in the radio news today), the substance was chocolate cake, my point was that the ability to consume, unrestrictivly, can and does cause harm, be it alcohol, chocolate cake and yes pot.

And what is good for the goose is good for the gander is exactly right, you go on for how many postings using alcohol as a crutch to minimize pot, then you better expect the tables to be turned and the use of alcohol as a crutch to demonstrate general lack of self control of the human being.

Note that I actually explained my correlation of alcohol to the topic matter, a feat that you have yet to do.

-- Posted by Nick Mercy on Thu, Dec 8, 2011, at 6:44 PM

I guess my final question is this, are we at our best for our families, neighbors, and society in general when we are stoned or drunk? Those of of who follow Christ as our example, know the answer is no. We cannot provide service to our fellow humans if we are drunk or stoned. We can't cloth them, feed them, provide sound council, if we are under the influence. Instead, it is those who chose to be drunk or stoned who need to be clothed, fed, and counseled.

And that, is my point of view.

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Thu, Dec 8, 2011, at 7:09 PM

Not to demean your relgious stance, but sometimes those who follow Christ are just as guilty of both, if not at times worse.

-- Posted by bberry on Fri, Dec 9, 2011, at 11:57 AM

Really bberry? How so?

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Fri, Dec 9, 2011, at 12:34 PM

Nick

I have provided information about all the common intoxicants for comparison. For what ever reason one chooses to indulge in these substances is up for grabs. Whether you want to acknowledge the facts and data relating to each is your choice. My goal is to provide information which will enable people to make an informed decision of the possible dangers associated with using any of the most common substances.

The fact that so many of our youth are dying from use of a substance that is legal and is sold in almost every city in the country has many of us wondering if there shouldn't be a legal alternative to what is currently available. Since alcohol has no medicinal value that I am aware of, its sole value to society is to provide euphoric feelings of good will, fun, etc., etc. -- otherwise getting high.

Marijuana, although having additional medicinal value is also used for the same reason as alcohol, for getting high. Both substances popularity is predominantly driven by the euphoric feeling obtained when used and both will remain popular regardless of their legal status. That brings us to our current state of affairs.

A growing percentage of our population has a very good understanding of the risks involved in using marijuana, either by using it themselves or knowing someone that has or currently does -- its use has been popular for over 50 years. Many have come to the conclusion that the use of marijuana is far less dangerous compared to other substances. This has also been confirmed by large percentages of our health care professionals, law enforcement professionals, scientists, etc.

If we as a civilized society are going to continue to allow people to get high in their pursuit of happiness, we should at least allow them to choose a substance less dangerous than is currently legally offered. Is that too much to ask?

-- Posted by Geezer on Fri, Dec 9, 2011, at 4:30 PM

Chunky

I think it is great that you choose to exercise your religious freedom. After all, isn't that one of the main reasons the early settlers came to America -- religious freedom?

Let me ask you a couple questions concerning your counseling, providing of food, and clothing. How many people have you provided counseling for due to alcohol related issues and how many have you provided counseling for due to marijuana related issues? Please include deaths in the family, related health problems, birth defects, etc.

Knowing that most kids will at least try some sort of mind altering substance sometime during their life time, do you think it is important that they have a legal choice between a substance which can be lethal depending on the dosage consumed or one than has been proven to be non lethal?

"How many people have you provided counseling for due to alcohol related issues" First and foremost, my children. What better source of information than first hand knowledge. Acquaintances who seek knowledge how I managed to defeat an addiction. It's free, just ask.

"and how many have you provided counseling for due to marijuana related issues?" Again, my kids. They need to know how weed usage brought my life to a stand still. With that knowledge, they have seen among their peers that what I have taught them was true.

"Please include deaths in the family, related health problems, birth defects, etc." Uncle died of chronic alcoholism, grandfather was a long term alcoholic, father was an alcoholic, both diabetics, as am I. Not known if that is a cause. Father in-law is a drug addict. Wife, a life-long non-user. Daughter has neurological problems, currently unknown if there are any links from family drug history, she is adopted. Younger daughter, no symptoms.

"do you think it is important that they have a legal choice between a substance which can be lethal depending on the dosage consumed or one than has been proven to be non lethal?" Lethality really is of no concern to me, if they choose to use, they will suffer the consequences. It is my hope, with the information I have given them, and their own observations of their peers, everything I have taught them is true. It is presently played out in my eldest daughters life. She knows of my destruction, she sees it in her grandfather's life, and it is pot.

As far as the legality issue, I say it's a state's rights issue.

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Fri, Dec 9, 2011, at 5:47 PM

bberry,

Used or using? That is the difference for us.

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Fri, Dec 9, 2011, at 5:50 PM

Chunky

Thanks for your honest answers, it is appreciated.

-- Posted by Geezer on Fri, Dec 9, 2011, at 5:59 PM

You are welcome Geezer.

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Fri, Dec 9, 2011, at 6:09 PM

CPB,

Used or using, doesn't matter. I am sure there are both types.

-- Posted by bberry on Sat, Dec 10, 2011, at 8:16 AM

One cannot be using or addicted and possibly say they are following the example of Jesus. However, many have used, and have said goodbye to that life and started anew. They are the born-agains.

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Sun, Dec 11, 2011, at 12:01 AM

CPB,

I know they can't, but they sure claim to be. You can even broaden this outside of drug use.

-- Posted by bberry on Sun, Dec 11, 2011, at 7:18 AM

Not sure about your thought process, but sure.

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Sun, Dec 11, 2011, at 8:27 AM

I do not want to really go too much in depth with it without offending anyone, but let's put it this way. Even those who follow Christ aren't without sin.

-- Posted by bberry on Sun, Dec 11, 2011, at 11:48 AM

I personally do not know of any follower of Christ who is without sin, past or present. I would not believe anyone who says they are without sin. I guess if that's your point, then yes, I agree.

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Sun, Dec 11, 2011, at 1:06 PM

Sorry, I'm just now getting back to the Gazette site. So to be clear then Geezer..... your stance is that pot should be legalized so the youth of America, or at least Nebraska, have options... drunk, or stoned.

Got it. Thank you for the clarification.

-- Posted by Nick Mercy on Sun, Dec 11, 2011, at 1:12 PM

I was just being facetious. This topic has been repeated multiple times; it's gone around the loop and begun from the top. It is obviously going to continue to continue. I half expect to see pot legalized and if so, it will be interesting to see if there ARE recorded issues with it. It should be stimulating to see if it truly is harmless or just hasn't been tracked adequately.

Farewell for now.

-- Posted by Nick Mercy on Sun, Dec 11, 2011, at 1:18 PM

Nick

I prefer to look at it as dead or alive. You can look at it anyway you want.

-- Posted by Geezer on Sun, Dec 11, 2011, at 1:33 PM

there would be an age limit nick. The youth would not be doing it.

-- Posted by president obama on Sun, Dec 11, 2011, at 6:18 PM

I doubt that would limit it dawg. It is similar to saying youth don't drink because of of the age limit.

-- Posted by bberry on Sun, Dec 11, 2011, at 8:11 PM

I'm sure there SHOULD be an age limit, has anyone seen what the actual bill would state or do we vote on speculation.... And I believe that Geezer's point was, its better to subject the youth with a milder poison that what they are currently subjecting themselves to.

-- Posted by Nick Mercy on Sun, Dec 11, 2011, at 10:34 PM

My concern is based on the risk associated with the use of drugs or alcohol. Just because one has been labeled a legal substance, does not equate to it having less of a risk factor for those that choose to use it.

If we lived in a perfect world where everything was done in moderation we wouldn't be having this conversation -- unfortunately, that is not reality. The reality is we are standing by and watching as tens of thousands of our young adults kill themselves through the misuse of alcohol. The recent popularity of binge drinking should serve as a wakeup call for everyone.

The unfavorable stigma attached to marijuana and its illegal status has allowed the alcohol industry to round up our youth similar to an old fashioned cattle round-up. Every time one of them chooses to use a less risky substance and break from the herd, the dogs are called in to make sure they stay headed in the right direction.

How much longer are we going to stand silent and watch our children be herded to the slaughter house?

-- Posted by Geezer on Mon, Dec 12, 2011, at 9:02 AM

Geezer,

I understand your point about the lesser of two evils, but I am unsure if it is really a favorable argument. Perferably children shouldn't be using either.

I think they could curb minors' alcohol use better by imposing stricter punishments for those caught with or using it.

-- Posted by bberry on Mon, Dec 12, 2011, at 6:10 PM

bberry

I suppose additional punishment could be imposed to underage youth that choose to consume alcohol, but it will not reduce the risk to those that do.

Alcohol has the potential to incapacitate an individual to the point where they lose control of all body functions. Alcohol is a toxic substance, essentially a poison -- it is classified as a depressant, this means it slows down the activity in the brain responsible for controlling things like breathing and the gag reflex. If you drink enough it can slow or even stop these vital functions resulting in death. For a smaller person as few as 6 drinks in an hour have proven fatal.

In my opinion the only way to seriously reduce the risk to all age groups is to offer a legal less risky alternative. As long as alcohol remains the only legal choice nothing will change. We will inadvertently continue to push people to the use of alcohol for the fear of the consequences involved with using a less risky illegal substance.

Human nature and the journey to adult status pose many challenges to our youth and their parents, just as it did in our own lives. The advent of binge drinking and dare drinking has increased these challenges exponentially and parents have few options in their tool kits to abate this problem.

You are correct; our young children should not use either. Parents should educate their children on the risks of both and be honest with them. I would lots rather receive a phone call from the sheriff asking me to come pick my stoned kid, rather than telling me my kid was found passed out and is in the hospital on life support.

-- Posted by Geezer on Tue, Dec 13, 2011, at 8:13 AM

Geezer,

I disagree that initiating harsher punishments wouldn't reduce risk.

I am positive that youth that choose to use alcohol and are caught resort to drinking alcohol again.

They are given at most a fine (which I am sure in most cases the parents pay), maybe a slight delay of drivers license, and maybe a few hours of community service.

Yet there are still those who get caught using it again.

Going further with this, if there is an age restriction on it's use it would still remain illegal for youth to use. Therefor legalizing it for adults would have accomplished nothing.

I guess, you could make the argument for increased availability to them making it more of a deturant.

But this would seem to go against teaching children not to do alcohol or marijuana.

But I do agree, I would rather find one stoned than dead. Which, I imagine, is why I remain undecided.

-- Posted by bberry on Tue, Dec 13, 2011, at 10:03 AM

I find it funny that the people that say or back the idea that people that support the left want the govt to make decisions for them a take care of them. That the right supports people taking care of themselves and making their own decisions. But, when it comes to weed people can't make the decision for themselves the govt must do it. Sorry but you can't have it both ways. Either the govt should regulate what decisions we make or they shouldn't regulate any of them.

-- Posted by carlsonl on Tue, Dec 13, 2011, at 10:22 AM

What is boils down to is where do we draw the line on what the govt decides we can and cannot put in our bodies along with what we have to. To attend public schools you have to have certain immunizations or you can't attend. In Texas they are making girls get HPV shots.

So in fact we allow our govt to tell us what to put in our body and also dictate what items are optional to put in our body. This is what the right would say is overregulation if you made it a comparison to regulation in business.

But since it doesn't have to do with the bottom line the right appears to take the stand that the govt should decide.

Do you not see the hypocrisy of this?

-- Posted by carlsonl on Tue, Dec 13, 2011, at 10:36 AM

People don't just stop at intersections, they stop due to stop signs (theoretically). People don't pay vehicle taxes out of the kindness of their hearts.

Everyday we follow rules, laws, that were set up by our government. The foundation of the government is "By the people for the people". That system may have slipped slightly over the years but ultimately without rules we have anarchy.

That being said, a country of immoral public by extension makes immoral rules which will ultimately be the undoing of that country but that's another story.

My point is, a government can not just let people do what they please, hence there are rules.

Come on carlson, do you really believe that people should be allowed to do what they wish?

-- Posted by Nick Mercy on Tue, Dec 13, 2011, at 1:58 PM

Correction: what I meant to say was: "Come on carlson, do you really believe that people should be able to do EVERYTHING they wish?". As a free country, we do have the right to our freedoms, but there IS an extent to what we can do.

-- Posted by Nick Mercy on Tue, Dec 13, 2011, at 2:02 PM

Nick I think you missed the point and that might have been because of the use of my comparison. I am sorry if that is the case. My point was I don't think the govt should be allowed to tell people what they can and cannot put in their bodies. I also think the govt should not be able to make it where parents are forced to put stuff in their kids bodies they do now want to.

-- Posted by carlsonl on Tue, Dec 13, 2011, at 2:04 PM

The hypocrisy comes in when the right wants to ease regulations on industries that before regulations were contaminating ground water, air, soil and everyday products. So in a way the right is saying lets allow these things to slip by for the good of the bottom line (which will help employment out). But in doing this they allow these poisons to enter our bodies by now choice of the individual. But, when it comes to something that the individual can control getting into their bodies the govt must step in and make it illegel. GET IT NOW??

-- Posted by carlsonl on Tue, Dec 13, 2011, at 2:09 PM

"So going by what you are saying Marlin, they should legalize cocaine because people should be able to make their own decisions without government involvement?"

First off, REGARDLESS of whether something is legal or illegal, people can and will use and abuse it(whatever it may be)...I'm not saying we should legalize cocaine, meth, heroin, or anything...I'm just saying we've already got more addictive, more potent drugs that we get with a prescription, LEGALLY. The saddest part is, people can get a prescription, not take it and sell it for triple what they paid...and they do it.

Bberry, the part of that statement, that is true, is the final portion 'make their own decisions without government involvement' YES. YES. YES. YES. YES. YES. YES. The government should NOT be telling me I can or cannot ingest something, regardless of the side effects. The government should not control us, we should control it. Let science and nature takes it's course. If someone wants to lack control and judgement, that is their own problem. We all are in control of ourselves, our actions and our moral values. They are choices, they are not 'given' or 'taken'. If someone is illogical enough to do something to the excessive amount to harm themselves, who's fault is that? None but their own...in the words of Mr. T "I Pity The Fool"

-- Posted by marlin on Wed, Dec 14, 2011, at 11:58 AM

Well that was supposed to be rhetorical with an example of harmful substance to demonstrate that it isn't feasible to trust people to their own vices. I already knew your answer.

The thing is you could probably make the argument for marijuana alone and hold more ground. It in't admissable however, to assert that everyone is capable of managing themselves.

If they could the US would not be spending over half its budget in entitlements, nor would they house millions of inmates.

If a person overdoses on heroine, cocaine etc if we were to allow them to be legalized, and cannot afford medical care, who do you think pays for that? There are more side effects than just saying oh well, they were the idiots that overdosed.

I understand your point, and know your a primarily advocating marijuana, but saying the government should leave us to all of our own vices isn't really feasible.

Really the best thing for an advocate of marijauna is to demonstrate it's benefits, if any.

-- Posted by bberry on Wed, Dec 14, 2011, at 3:46 PM

Bberry,

Did you comprehend what I was saying?

The government should not be involved in the governing of one's self. We all are individuals, capable of whatever we choose to do. With the internent, it is easier than ever to get anything outlawed from other countries. The government, is a group of men, women, dipshits, whatever you want to call them, who themselves are incompetent at running their own life, but somehow are capable of deciding how the rest of us can lead our lives?

If one chooses to overdose, become dependent due to a choice, it is THEIR CHOICE. Not your's. Your life will not be harmed by their downfall or death. It does not matter. Their life's choices lead them to that, it is THEIR FAULT AND SOLELY THEIRS. I would rather my tax dollars be spent on burning their bodies, instead of having them live off welfare, food stamps, and unemployment, or the pharmaceuticals they get on to 'battle their addiction' which, we also pay for... I'm not saying all that are on the government cheese do this, but, majority do. Our problem is that our country gives, gives, gives, we need to stop...if we do not tighten our country down we will all be doomed. You cannot save every person or soul, they must save themselves.

So my belief that the government should not GOVERN my body, my life, my conscious mind is not feasible? What is feasible about being controlled, governed, and not questioning 'authority' and people with truth, reason, science, logic? Are you a devout religious believer?

BBerry, did you drive home the other night from loop's after you enjoyed a delicious Irish Red? You most likely did...It's such a small town, and it's not a far drive(mentality of everyone in McCook)Aren't you aware of the affects of 1 12oz. alcoholic beverage does to your judgement and reaction abilities? You put yourself in danger and those around you. The innocent people driving on the street by you, such a shame. You can decide to drink, then drive, despite you governing yourself on how it 'affects'you, it is still unlawful and wrong. You obviously are not capable(according to how you believe/your view on this) of knowing the affects and damages it reaps on your health and the innocent people around you....what a horrendous way to live life, not having freedom...it's a scary world we live in right now...

I must ask, have you traveled afar and to other countries? Seen the difference from there and here?

-- Posted by marlin on Thu, Dec 15, 2011, at 10:50 AM

"The government should not be involved in the governing of one's self. We all are individuals, capable of whatever we choose to do."

We've covered this already, you're just repeating yourself now.

"The government, is a group of men, women, dipshits, whatever you want to call them, who themselves are incompetent at running their own life, but somehow are capable of deciding how the rest of us can lead our lives?"

Ok, however you did not make the assertion in your previous post. But we can expand on this and emphasize the importance of voting. This is so our representatives as a whole can decide for us, whether or not if it has our own personal interests in mind. You will not make everyone happy, and in this case, marijuana advocates.

Continuing this, wouldn't you agree they would be more capable of making a few decisions in some instances than those that would overdose on a drug?

It is still their choice to decide whether they want to do the drug or not be it legal or illegal. This is where we begin to weigh the consequences of the actions of those individuals and the effects suffered by everyone else because of them. Hence the reason for government.

"I would rather my tax dollars be spent on burning their bodies, instead of having them live off welfare, food stamps, and unemployment, or the pharmaceuticals they get on to 'battle their addiction' which, we also pay for..."

You make the assumption here that everyone that overdoses dies, along with the assumption they would be cremated if they were to do so. This isn't true, so we cannot make the assumption the cost would be finite upon overdosing.

"So my belief that the government should not GOVERN my body, my life, my conscious mind is not feasible? What is feasible about being controlled, governed, and not questioning 'authority' and people with truth, reason, science, logic? Are you a devout religious believer?"

No, I am saying it is not reasonable to believe even though you are capable of governing yourself, that you could reasonably assume everyone else can. Even if I was in favor of communism, which I am not, it would have no bearing on my religion.

As far as the drive home, yes I drove home. There are more factors then you would assume to play into the effects of alcohol on me. I had eaten, also my weight and tolerance play a factor. While you could question the amount of impairment, it was reasonable to assume that one beer had last impact on me than one joint of marijuana would have since I have never used the substance. We can continue on and say that even with one beer given the prior factors I would have still been under the legal blood alcohol limit.

So I am unsure where you get unlawful and wrong from?

As far as other countries, I am certain any of them have far less liberties than we do. But maybe I am unsure of your point?

-- Posted by bberry on Thu, Dec 15, 2011, at 1:41 PM

One beer had less impact*

-- Posted by bberry on Thu, Dec 15, 2011, at 1:45 PM

Funny, when you quote me, you tend to leave out key points of my statement. One prime example. The overdosing. I clearly, stated "I'm not saying all that are on the government cheese do this, but, majority do." I find it comical that you base your statement, off of only what benefits your reason. Instead of acknowledging the statement in it's entirety.

You sir, cannot, absolutely cannot dictate how alcohol will affect you. Despite your weight, height, eating a meal, etc. The important factor is the nutrients in which you ingested at hand, and prior, as well as post your ingestion of alcohol that matters. I highly doubt you don't spike your insulin levels multiple times a day.

With your same logic, you cannot compare weed to alcohol(you and nick mercy both have said this) because, you simply stated, you've never tried it. So you blindly, yet boldly are against something in which you have no actual conception of? How irrational. Why did you try alcohol? I can base my view on this from experiences with both alcohol and marijuana. Even combined. I know, first hand, from experience, the impairments both will induce. I simply enjoy a fine grown plant, like you enjoy a finely crafted brew. Yet, due to people with your same inept, irrational, and closed-mind process of thought and judgement, seem to think you know how horrible this plant is....Again, bringing it back to the fact that you don't know WHY you're against, it but you've been brainwashed by multiple avenues in which I do not wish to go down with you.

-- Posted by marlin on Thu, Dec 15, 2011, at 5:28 PM

marlin.... I've never tried murder either but I'm pretty sure it's not a good thing. And you know what, if you give me a good reason why alcohol and marijuana should be compared then at least that will be fresh topic because I don't believe anyone has satisfactorily explained that yet.

-- Posted by Nick Mercy on Thu, Dec 15, 2011, at 9:09 PM

How much marijuana does it take to get a high?

-- Posted by npwinder on Thu, Dec 15, 2011, at 9:59 PM

"Funny, when you quote me, you tend to leave out key points of my statement. One prime example. The overdosing. I clearly, stated "I'm not saying all that are on the government cheese do this, but, majority do." I find it comical that you base your statement, off of only what benefits your reason. Instead of acknowledging the statement in it's entirety."

Ok, but the statement had no benefit to your argument. You were merely stating the obvious.

I was basing what I was saying off what we were already discussing which was the added costs of those that couldn't pay for medical care if they overdosed. It was an example of its impact on others.

"The important factor is the nutrients in which you ingested at hand, and prior, as well as post your ingestion of alcohol that matters. I highly doubt you don't spike your insulin levels multiple times a day."

I had eaten prior to the consumption of the beer.

That still doesn't make it illegal.

"With your same logic, you cannot compare weed to alcohol(you and nick mercy both have said this) because, you simply stated, you've never tried it."

We both stated we haven't used the drug, but I've never made the argument about not being comparetive.

I do not need to try marijuana first hand to see the effects it has on others. And given what I do know from my own use of alcohol, and its demonstrative effects on others, it's still reasonable to posit the effects it would have on myself.

"Yet, due to people with your same inept, irrational, and closed-mind process of thought and judgement, seem to think you know how horrible this plant is...."

I have stood by my opinion that I am undecided. If I were to claim it were horrible, it would have mean I had decided against it. I do not think it is reasonable to assume that marijuana would have no negative impact on driving though.

Less than alcohol perhaps, but it doesnt mean not at all.

However, insults will not back your point of views simply because I do not agree with your view in its entirety.

I had to laugh to myself though, I already knew your argument before you made it.

-- Posted by bberry on Fri, Dec 16, 2011, at 7:26 AM

Nick

I believe it has been explained to you over and over, yet you always come back with that same argument. You don't want to have a real discussion on the issues surrounding the use of drugs and alcohol Nick - your mission seems to be to disrupt the discussion any way you can.

You want to have a real discussion then let's have one -- I would be glad to debate the issue with you Nick, I don't even care if you use all CAPS.

-- Posted by Geezer on Fri, Dec 16, 2011, at 8:00 AM

Geezer, I think the reason Nick continues to express a desire for a good reason to compare alcohol and marijuana- or at least the reason I would do so- is because pointing out all these statistics and saying how bad alcohol is compared to marijuana is almost completely useless to convincing people that we should legalize the recreational use of marijuana. If anything, continuing to make the comparison as support for marijuana is more disruptive to this discussion since it fails to contribute to making a good case for legalizing marijuana. Most people already know how bad alcohol is, but that isn't a good reason to make marijuana illegal just because it "isn't as bad."

You suggested that marijuana be an alternative to alcohol, but how will that help lower those horrifying statistics of alcohol-related accidents and abuse? Will enough people really switch to marijuana from alcohol if it is legal, or will it just end up that more people use both? Besides, isn't it feasible that, if marijuana usage becomes as ingrained into society as alcohol usage, that the negative statistics marijuana usage is supposedly lacking will go up?

I just fail to see how providing an alternative to alcohol will lower alcohol abuse, especially since people go on about how the War on Drugs has failed to do so. Then again, I guess if healthy and/or low-fat alternatives to fast food and junk food has made a significant impact in the obesity level of our nation, then I could see that point somewhat.

The only argument I've seen thus far that makes a "good" case for legalizing recreational marijuana is the whole "the government shouldn't control what we ingest" thing, and I still haven't really teetered to one side or the other on that yet. It certainly doesn't help that marlin is starting to take the tired, elitist, and useless stance of the "intellectual superiority" of one side compared to the "close-minded inferiority" of the other.

-- Posted by bjo on Fri, Dec 16, 2011, at 12:16 PM

Geezer, I'm sorry I missed your point. Now that you spell it out, I see.

Is that the best you've got though? I've seen friends try to quite smoking by picking up chewing and although their cigarette expenditures dropped, their chew tab went up and now they do both just as bjo suggested. What's the saying? "Two wrongs don't make a right.". How about promoting alcohol hypnosis? IF your concern is truly to make kids safe.

Call a spade a spade, you want to get high, numb the pain, take the edge off, reduce the stress. Can't make it in life without the mind altering substance? Hey a lot of people can't. I'm not judging, real life isn't for everyone. I suppose if I didn't have people depending on me, specifically my children followed by my employees, then maybe I'd hit the bottle and bong too. I am just required to keep a clear head so that I can make fruitful decisions when it comes to how my actions effect others.

Perhaps I am judging.... My sincerest apologies. As marlin "Mr jump on the band wagon" has said.... I have never done it so how can I have an opinion?

-- Posted by Nick Mercy on Fri, Dec 16, 2011, at 1:20 PM

Just think if you legalized it you could have another crop to subsidize. You would think the right would be all over that.

-- Posted by carlsonl on Fri, Dec 16, 2011, at 2:36 PM

bjo and Nick,

Thank you for the civil reply, it is most appreciated. Since you both seem to have more or less the same concern with Marijuana I will just address you both at the same time if that is alright.

The whole issue of drugs and alcohol need to be addressed as a group, because in essence they are all the same. They come in different forms, strengths, addiction levels, risks, etc. but all are primarily used for the same reason. To get an accurate picture of why one substance is favored over another requires an assessment of each member of the group.

Marijuana is the most commonly used illegal drug in the United States. Over 83 million people over the age of 12 have tried it and nearly 50% of all high school seniors have tried it. The numbers alone don't justify the use of marijuana by any rationale, but it does accurately portray a picture of how many of our countries adult citizens and youth break the law every single day of the year. Why do you suppose anyone would want to take that kind of risk?

They can't all be drug addicts, hippies, and deadbeats can they -- remember, half of these people are the next American Generation. Have we failed as parents, are our schools responsible, our churches, our law enforcement, where have we gone wrong? Why isn't the war on drugs working? Since 1970 when President Nixon signed into law the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act, our country has spent over a trillion dollars - yet after 40 years of prohibition enforcement the popularity and use of marijuana continues to grow. Why is this phenomenon happening?

We all end up being nothing more than the sum of our experiences we have encountered as we travel along the path of life. Some of these experiences are intentionally taught to us in school, at home, and through our religious beliefs with the intent of keeping us on a path that those before us have determined to be in our own best interest. However, there comes a time when every species of animal, including man, must begin the process of becoming independent and making their own decisions in life. The very survival of any species requires this transformation to take place. Anyone that has raised a family or been around animals has a good understanding of this process. In fact, I can remember the exact date that each of my daughters began this journey.

Once this journey has begun our experiences in life tend to be more influenced by our own choices rather than the choices that others prefer us to make. Through these experiences we develop a database that allows us to make future decisions based on past experiences. What we individually determine to be in our best interests is usually projected in our future decisions.

Could it be that the popularity in marijuana has grown as result of people making a decision that it is ultimately in their best interest?

-- Posted by Geezer on Sat, Dec 17, 2011, at 8:02 AM

Geezer,

I am unsure how drug use in their best interest?

-- Posted by bberry on Sat, Dec 17, 2011, at 8:20 AM

bberry

There you go, still trying to make other peoples dicisions for them.

-- Posted by Geezer on Sat, Dec 17, 2011, at 8:35 AM

Geezer,

No, I was refuting your point. How is it in their best interest?

-- Posted by bberry on Sat, Dec 17, 2011, at 10:19 AM

bberry

It is in their best interest if their experiences and education indicate it to be so.

-- Posted by Geezer on Sat, Dec 17, 2011, at 11:01 AM

Geezer,

How vague.

In what instances does experience and education determine marijuana to be in their best interest?

It has probably grown in popularity due to people making decisions for themselves, not because marijuana is ultimately in their best interest.

-- Posted by bberry on Sat, Dec 17, 2011, at 11:17 AM

bberry

How presumptuous on your behalf.

We should not endorse the use of any drug or alcohol, but for those that do so (a large percentage of our population) we should not be persecute them for making what they consider to be their best choice.

-- Posted by Geezer on Sat, Dec 17, 2011, at 11:37 AM

Geezer,

It is no more presumptious than you saying they were using marijuana because it was in their best interest.

Rather than deciding what they consider to be their own best interests, i.e. making the decision for themselves.

-- Posted by bberry on Sat, Dec 17, 2011, at 11:49 AM

Let's do the comparison then..... A large portion of the population endorses the use of alcohol. By your admission Geezer, then alcohol is in their best interest? So why then do you chastise alcohol use? If its in the population's best interest that is?

I don't think it is. I also don't think that everything that makes one feel satisfied is in their best interest, cigarettes, high saturated fatty foods and for some folks cruelty to animals brings quite a sensation of self fulfillment.

To me, you gain nothing with the argument that if it feels good do it. THAT is merely condoning the overuse of anything and those with weak wills, will take advantage of a widely accepted excuse.

Is America obese? Yes, over-eating of the good stuff. Does America have a high alcohol related death rate? Yes, over-drinking. Does America have a high rate of drug use? You get my point. I don't think you can comfortably say that ONLY because people felt like it was in their best interest that the popularity of each increased. That is what I gathered from your comment Geezer, which was the latest of your efforts to justify putting another bad habit forming product into the hands of those searching for a vice. Did I get your point?

-- Posted by Nick Mercy on Sat, Dec 17, 2011, at 12:59 PM

bberry

I will continue to advocate for an individuals choice of using marijuana as long as alcohol remains our countries only legal option. Regardless of what argument you use, marijuana is not as potentially dangerous as other drugs or alcohol -- the fatality statistics, the news paper articles relating to alcohol violence, the science, and even our healthcare professionals are all standing up and letting their voices be heard - enough is enough.

To me the risk is similar to someone choosing to mess around with a BB-Gun or a 12 gauge shotgun. We should be thankful that our children are opting for the less dangerous choice -- at least we may still have a chance to change their path in life.

-- Posted by Geezer on Sat, Dec 17, 2011, at 1:53 PM

Geezer,

Advocating it is fine, and although I do not agree with you that marijuana is in someones best interest whether they consider it to be or not, it should be their decision though it is still questionable if everyone else should be subjected to their decisions.

It find it hard to accept that if 83 million Americans have tried or are using marijuana that it would have a positive affect on alcohol statistics after legalization. Wouldn't it already have displayed a positive effect already?

Perhaps when more information presents itself I will be able to form a judgement either way.

Until then I will agree to disagree.

Have a good one.

-- Posted by bberry on Sat, Dec 17, 2011, at 2:33 PM

The only way to get the information people are seeking to justify it really can't be obtained in levels they want unless it is legalized.

If people are gonna use the stats of alcohol as a reason to avoid legalizing weed then you have to make it illegal as well. After all it is a addictive, impairing, and can be a desctructive drug. Sounds just like the arguement against weed.

In my opinion you have to have both legal or both illegal. Though people hate to use the two as a comparison, lets face it they are always compared for the good or the bad of each.

Let's save a ton of tax payer dollars on fighting weed and turn it into a tax revenue much like cigarettes.

-- Posted by carlsonl on Sat, Dec 17, 2011, at 3:32 PM

So we should legalize it just to make a point?

On the other hand, they are using stats of alcohol to try and support the legalization of weed.

-- Posted by bberry on Sat, Dec 17, 2011, at 3:55 PM

I just wanted to make sure everyone weighs in on the Marijuana Legalization Poll the Gazette is doing. It is located on the Home Page.

The following link contains information on the $2 billion dollars a year the alcohol industry spends on advertising and what influence it has on our youth. Whether you are for legalizing marijuana or not, you should read this article.

There are currently two articles in the State News section of the Gazette which give somewhat of a comparison of how our Judicial System views the drug and alcohol issue. I would like to hear your opinions on these articles.

The first link is to an article about a person who shows up drunk to a hearing for his third drunk driving offense and then passes out. His hearing was postponed and he was sent to the hospital.

The second link is about a pot house bust in Lincoln and a person that was sentenced for one to two years in prison for watering and helping harvest the plants in exchange for a place to live. He had no prior criminal record. His attorney argued for probation, but the judge said that would send the wrong message.

I am unsure if those are really compartive. The man was using alcohol, whereas the other one was "just watering and helping harvest" the plant. It didn't state that he was using it.

I wonder if the rest or the owner got similar penalties?

-- Posted by bberry on Sun, Dec 18, 2011, at 7:14 AM

bberry

Yes the man was using alcohol and had been picked up three times in the past for drunk driving.

I don't know about the others involved in the grow operation, I will try to find some additional information.

-- Posted by Geezer on Sun, Dec 18, 2011, at 7:26 AM

bberry

Apparently it was a family operation and there are indictments for two other members of the family.

-- Posted by Geezer on Sun, Dec 18, 2011, at 7:44 AM

Guess the man watering and harvesting should have looked into Govt assistance rather then finding a way to make it on his own. I am sure this comment will raise an eyebrow but the right wants people going through a hard time to what they can without govt help. I don't think they realize the rate at which crime will skyrocket if they got their wish.

-- Posted by carlsonl on Sun, Dec 18, 2011, at 7:54 AM

Nah, he'll get a roof over his head, a bed, and three square meals a day.

-- Posted by bberry on Sun, Dec 18, 2011, at 8:06 AM

LOL true. Maybe that was his plan all along. I mean he was working for the roof over his head. Now he gets a roof, food, bed, tv, and internet.

I guess this proves the right was right. You work and come up with the right plan everything will come to you.

-- Posted by carlsonl on Sun, Dec 18, 2011, at 8:10 AM

For now the only observation I can draw from reading about marijuana legalization overseas is that it would perhaps be better to decriminalize it intead of legalizing it.

It draws no conclusion that marijuana use would increase after legalization, which begs the question if it would really be beneficial as an alcohol replacement.

If there were a vote to decriminalize it, my vote would be yes.

-- Posted by bberry on Sun, Dec 18, 2011, at 8:11 AM

bberry

Nebraska is already a decriminalized state. That was done in 2001 I believe. There was legislation proposed in 2008 to reverse that but instead they just changed some of the penalities, etc.

-- Posted by Geezer on Mon, Dec 19, 2011, at 7:09 AM

Geezer,

Thanks, I did not know this. What is the penalty for possession then? Just a fine or probation etc?

Geezer, there is certainly no doubt in anyone's mind that alcohol causes fatalities.... But the article that grandmajo referenced is a fatality involving meth & MARIJUANA. Honestly, with nearly 200 posting on this topic, I gave up looking for the particular comment, but it is up there somewhere, that stated that marijuana was "not linked to a single fatality" I can only presume that there are many cases that involve the marriage of pot and fatalities, and that statistic will most likely only raise if the substance becomes legalized and more easily obtainable.

-- Posted by Nick Mercy on Tue, Dec 20, 2011, at 12:11 AM

Geezer on Sun, Dec 4, 2011, at 12:01 PM ?, my mistake, it wasn't marijuana related deaths, it was fatalities caused by marijuana overdose. I stand corrected, I should have hunted harder for that quote.

Still, greandmajo's article shows that alcohol isn't the only thing that can impair driving. You're still ingesting a mind altering option to alcohol. I don't think advocating that is a wise thing to do.

-- Posted by Nick Mercy on Tue, Dec 20, 2011, at 1:24 AM

Has anyone seen Frank's new plate by the way? Ironic really, an inmate may be pressing a plate in support for the legalization of a substance which may have been that cause of the inmate's incarceration in the first place.

-- Posted by Nick Mercy on Tue, Dec 20, 2011, at 1:28 AM

Nick

Meth is one of the most common drugs used by truck drivers because it allows them to stay awake for extended time periods. Users often refer to this as "being on a runner" -- runners can last for days. At some point the meth can no longer compensate for lack of rest and the runner collapses. One of its most common prescription uses is in the control of obesity. Remember your example of the lady that ate chocolate cake and gained so much weight? Her doctor might prescribe a meth based diet supplement for her because it increases activity and decreases appetite. Diet pills were all the rage in the 70's, anyone that was 2 pounds overweight could get a prescription and many did and probably still do. Of course most sources for meth are from illegal cooking operations, not prescription medicine. It is estimated that 1 in 5 truck drivers use meth.

The latest "Monitoring the Future" in school survey on drugs and alcohol use issued this month is now available for review.

Marijuana use continues to rise among U.S. teens, while alcohol use hits historic lows. Other forms of illicit drugs such as cocaine, crack, vicodin, adderal, sedatives, tranquilizers, and inhalents are also decreasing in use.

Teens are conscientiously making an informed choice based on the perceived risk of the substances involved. I know there will be those that say they don't know what is good for them and they shouldn't be using any mind altering substance -- but for those that do it appears they have weighed their choices and have chosen what they consider to be the option with the least risks.

-- Posted by Geezer on Tue, Dec 20, 2011, at 7:32 AM

Geezer,

I am unsure if you could correlate the two.

Look at figure 3 or 4.

Both the trend of use and availability are trending downward.

Also comparing it with figure 1, in 1992 as marijuana use increased so did alcohol.

-- Posted by bberry on Tue, Dec 20, 2011, at 9:18 AM

bberry

I did not make the correlation, it was made in the press release as follows:

One possible explanation for the resurgence in marijuana use is that in recent years fewer teens report seeing much danger associated with its use, even with regular use (Figure 3). "Perceived risk," as the investigators call it--which the study has shown is often a harbinger of changes to come in the use of a drug--has been falling rather sharply for marijuana over the past five years or so; it continued to decline in all three grades this year. Teens' disapproval of marijuana use also has fallen over the past three or four years, suggesting a lowering of peer norms against use. (The decline in disapproval may be a consequence of the decline in perceived risk; past research has shown that these two dimensions are closely linked.)

-- Posted by Geezer on Tue, Dec 20, 2011, at 10:32 AM

Geezer,

My mistake, I thought that is what you were implying. I stand corrected.

-- Posted by bberry on Tue, Dec 20, 2011, at 12:25 PM

Bberry, again, you're completely ignoring the science. You cannot control how alcohol will impair you. Unless you carefully regulate intake of food, and beverage before and after. Depending upon the type of alcohol you're ingesting(liquor or beer) and what ingredients are in there. The more receptive you are to insulin will cause it to impair you quicker and harder. Did you eat pizza before hand? With white dough? Which spikes insulin? You might know how it has affected you in the past, but you cannot predict how it will. I'll say it again, your inept process and disregard for actual science is just sad. Keep believing what your doctor's are telling you...

"Geezer on Sun, Dec 4, 2011, at 12:01 PM ?, my mistake, it wasn't marijuana related deaths, it was fatalities caused by marijuana overdose. I stand corrected, I should have hunted harder for that quote.

Still, greandmajo's article shows that alcohol isn't the only thing that can impair driving. You're still ingesting a mind altering option to alcohol. I don't think advocating that is a wise thing to do."

You cannot overdose on marijuana....Compare marijuana related driving accidents, compared to alcohol. Just look at the factual evidence. Then go smoke a blunt and see for yourself it's not that bad...Hell I'll have one for each of you since it's CHristmas.

-- Posted by marlin on Wed, Dec 21, 2011, at 11:40 AM

"Bberry, again, you're completely ignoring the science. You cannot control how alcohol will impair you"

If I limited it to the single IrishRed beer, wouldn't that be controlling it? This aside from the fact I ate a full meal, this also controlling it? Once you also factor in weight, tolerance, amount of alcohol, when you ate, and time etc, you can make a reasonable judgement on how it will impair you. Had the amount of alcohol increased, I would agree it would have been less reasonable to judge. Science does account for this. As far as my blood sugar, since it was relatively close in time that I ate and consumed the beer, my blood sugar was fine.

If I consumed an excessive amount of alcohol over a length of time or had diabetes, then you might have had some merit.

So I can say with full confidence, after the experience, the potato did not cause me to be fully impaired (if at all), nor did the IrishRed as you implied.

You'll again tell me that I'm wrong and I couldn't possibly know the amount of my impairment. I'll say I can reasonably judge it in respect to the given factors and the single beer we were talking about and repeat the reasoning, but you'll ignore it and continue to say I'm ignoring science.

Yes, how very inept of me...

-- Posted by bberry on Wed, Dec 21, 2011, at 2:32 PM

bberry

Here is another article out of Lincoln concerning drug and alcohol use. This time it involves Mike Caputo, a Nebraska offensive lineman. The Police said he was found sleeping behind the wheel of his vehicle and had an alcohol content of .103, legally drunk.

Instead of receiving a DUI his charges were reduced to reckless driving with a $100 fine. Reason being he only had one speeding ticket, other than that he had no previous violations.

Remember the guy that got busted for watering and harvesting marijuana for a place to live? He had no past violations yet still received 1 to 2 years in prison because the judge didn't want to send the wrong message.

What message is being sent by allowing Caputo to avoid the DUI charge?